9 ms·

The cheating element is only _part_ of it, and the dominant regime at the time downplayed / ignored the DEI elements because that was supported by their ideolog

The cheating element is only _part_ of it, and the dominant regime at the time downplayed / ignored the DEI elements because that was supported by their ideology...like a sacred cow. Litigating "disparate impact" cases across any category became a successful attack vector against capitalist structures, and supported by Democratic leadership. This isn't "slapping a new coat of paint for propaganda," but rather exposing the rest of the iceberg that was otherwise concealed. Both pieces are relevant.

perching_aix 2y ago
> This isn't "slapping a new coat of paint for propaganda," but rather exposing the rest of the iceberg that was otherwise concealed. Our Blessed Homeland vs. Their Barbarous Wastes
- s3r3nity 2y ago
  Their Blessed Homeland vs. Our Barbarous Wastes
  - perching_aix 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Gud 2y ago
      What’s up with the hostility? You doing ok?
      - perching_aix 2y ago
        Thanks for asking, I think I do, yes. I'm not sure what you find particularly hostile about it - they edited out what they originally had to say, but even then, I'm not saying anything extraordinary. Telling people they're acting childish and are not bringing anything to the table argumentation wise I think is pretty low on the hostility scale. The irony of being called out as hostile after confronting someone that they're just asserting their opinions is definitely not lost on me. What a thread...
    - s3r3nity 2y ago
      It’s more of a “yes, and…” comment. Namely, both are relevant, but previously only one side was highlighted.
      - perching_aix 2y ago
        Neither are "relevant" in my opinion, not yours, not theirs. Both are inflammatory, subjective characterizations from different ends of the horseshoe. These are never productive or insightful, and that's why I brought up "Their Blessed Homeland vs. Our Barbarous Wastes".
legitster 2y ago
> and the dominant regime at the time downplayed / ignored the DEI elements because that was supported by their ideology In the eye of the beholder. The current regime is upplaying the DEI elements because of their ideology. The difference though is, unless everyone involved has a time machine, using current cultural agenda items and going back in time and attributing them to people is always going to be wild speculation.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  > using current cultural agenda items and going back in time and attributing them to people is always going to be wild speculation. I'm as blue as they come, but let's not mince words. This was a racial equity policy. Like a lot of them, it was designed by idiots and/or racists. Much like the elite college admissions lawsuit, we don't need to guess at people's ideology - they WROTE DOWN that the cognitive test "disadvantaged" black applicants and so a biographical questionnaire was needed to re-advantage them. When Trump opened his mouth to blame DEI for the crash, about 95% of what he said was hateful, totally-made-up bullshit. Despite that and speaking practically, DEI had a significant role to play in the ATC understaffing during the crash. I really wish that our party was better at calling out crazy people within our ranks, ESPECIALLY when they do stuff that's guaranteed to alienate a solid chunk of the country just based on if "their worst subject in school was science" or whatever other deranged, racist proxy for race they come up with.
  - legitster 2y ago
    The difference between this and the college scandal is that there were limited numbers of seats at colleges, so to putting in an underqualified white student meant you had to pull an overqualified Asian student. The situation here was the ATC was chronically understaffed and unable to fill positions. So an effort for them to boost applications makes sense even under non-DEI principles.
    - jtbayly 2y ago
      If they wanted more applicants, then they shouldn’t have been disqualifying good applicants on the basis of their biography.
PaulHoule 2y ago
If I had to blame anything on the Democrats it is this: Valuing competence is one thing. Valuing diversity is another thing. You can have neither, either one, or both. The democrats make a conspicuous show of not valuing competence in addition to making some noises about diversity. Nobody said Barack Obama was an affirmative action case, no, he was one of the greatest politicians of the first quarter-century. On the other hand I feel that many left-leaning politicians make conspicuous displays of incompetence, I'd particularly call out Karen Bass, who would fall for whatever Scientology was selling and then make excuses for it. I think they want donors to know that whatever they are they aren't capable, smart and ambitious like Ralph Nader but rather they don't connect the dots between serving donors and what effect it has on their constituents. When Bass was running for mayor of L.A. in a contested election for which she had to serve the whole community she went through a stunning transformation and really seemed to "get it", all the duckspeak aimed at reconciling a lefty constituency and rightist donors went away. Nowhere is this disregard for competence more conspicuous in the elections where a senile or disabled white man is running against a lunatic. Fetterman beat Oz (they said, it's nothing, he just has aphasia, except his job is to speak for Pennsylvania) but they held on to Biden until the last minute against Trump and his replacement lost. Democrats need to make it clear that you can have both, but shows of competence increase the conflict between being a party that is a favorite of donors and being a party that has mass appeal. Being just a little sheepish and stupid is the easy way to reconcile those but we see how that went in 2024.
- techapple 2y ago
  I would more likely say that the qualities that make one popular or wanting to deal with the bullshit of managing Americans disputes are in opposition to the qualities that make one qualified. See: almost every politician that’s not a Democrat. Incompetence is staggeringly bipartisan.
- xcrunner529 2y ago
  But you also have MTG who literally believes “they” control the weather so I’m not sure exactly why you single democrats out here or even the it to any kind of ideology specific consequence.

perching_aix 2y ago

> This isn't "slapping a new coat of paint for propaganda," but rather exposing the rest of the iceberg that was otherwise concealed. Our Blessed Homeland vs. Their Barbarous Wastes

s3r3nity 2y ago
Their Blessed Homeland vs. Our Barbarous Wastes
- perching_aix 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Gud 2y ago
    What’s up with the hostility? You doing ok?
    - perching_aix 2y ago
      Thanks for asking, I think I do, yes. I'm not sure what you find particularly hostile about it - they edited out what they originally had to say, but even then, I'm not saying anything extraordinary. Telling people they're acting childish and are not bringing anything to the table argumentation wise I think is pretty low on the hostility scale. The irony of being called out as hostile after confronting someone that they're just asserting their opinions is definitely not lost on me. What a thread...
  - s3r3nity 2y ago
    It’s more of a “yes, and…” comment. Namely, both are relevant, but previously only one side was highlighted.
    - perching_aix 2y ago
      Neither are "relevant" in my opinion, not yours, not theirs. Both are inflammatory, subjective characterizations from different ends of the horseshoe. These are never productive or insightful, and that's why I brought up "Their Blessed Homeland vs. Our Barbarous Wastes".

legitster 2y ago

> and the dominant regime at the time downplayed / ignored the DEI elements because that was supported by their ideology In the eye of the beholder. The current regime is upplaying the DEI elements because of their ideology. The difference though is, unless everyone involved has a time machine, using current cultural agenda items and going back in time and attributing them to people is always going to be wild speculation.

SR2Z 2y ago
> using current cultural agenda items and going back in time and attributing them to people is always going to be wild speculation. I'm as blue as they come, but let's not mince words. This was a racial equity policy. Like a lot of them, it was designed by idiots and/or racists. Much like the elite college admissions lawsuit, we don't need to guess at people's ideology - they WROTE DOWN that the cognitive test "disadvantaged" black applicants and so a biographical questionnaire was needed to re-advantage them. When Trump opened his mouth to blame DEI for the crash, about 95% of what he said was hateful, totally-made-up bullshit. Despite that and speaking practically, DEI had a significant role to play in the ATC understaffing during the crash. I really wish that our party was better at calling out crazy people within our ranks, ESPECIALLY when they do stuff that's guaranteed to alienate a solid chunk of the country just based on if "their worst subject in school was science" or whatever other deranged, racist proxy for race they come up with.
- legitster 2y ago
  The difference between this and the college scandal is that there were limited numbers of seats at colleges, so to putting in an underqualified white student meant you had to pull an overqualified Asian student. The situation here was the ATC was chronically understaffed and unable to fill positions. So an effort for them to boost applications makes sense even under non-DEI principles.
  - jtbayly 2y ago
    If they wanted more applicants, then they shouldn’t have been disqualifying good applicants on the basis of their biography.

PaulHoule 2y ago

If I had to blame anything on the Democrats it is this: Valuing competence is one thing. Valuing diversity is another thing. You can have neither, either one, or both. The democrats make a conspicuous show of not valuing competence in addition to making some noises about diversity. Nobody said Barack Obama was an affirmative action case, no, he was one of the greatest politicians of the first quarter-century. On the other hand I feel that many left-leaning politicians make conspicuous displays of incompetence, I'd particularly call out Karen Bass, who would fall for whatever Scientology was selling and then make excuses for it. I think they want donors to know that whatever they are they aren't capable, smart and ambitious like Ralph Nader but rather they don't connect the dots between serving donors and what effect it has on their constituents. When Bass was running for mayor of L.A. in a contested election for which she had to serve the whole community she went through a stunning transformation and really seemed to "get it", all the duckspeak aimed at reconciling a lefty constituency and rightist donors went away. Nowhere is this disregard for competence more conspicuous in the elections where a senile or disabled white man is running against a lunatic. Fetterman beat Oz (they said, it's nothing, he just has aphasia, except his job is to speak for Pennsylvania) but they held on to Biden until the last minute against Trump and his replacement lost. Democrats need to make it clear that you can have both, but shows of competence increase the conflict between being a party that is a favorite of donors and being a party that has mass appeal. Being just a little sheepish and stupid is the easy way to reconcile those but we see how that went in 2024.

techapple 2y ago
I would more likely say that the qualities that make one popular or wanting to deal with the bullshit of managing Americans disputes are in opposition to the qualities that make one qualified. See: almost every politician that’s not a Democrat. Incompetence is staggeringly bipartisan.
xcrunner529 2y ago
But you also have MTG who literally believes “they” control the weather so I’m not sure exactly why you single democrats out here or even the it to any kind of ideology specific consequence.