Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A DEI manager is a six figure position. It's not huge dollars, but not pocket change either.

And you miss the fact that a ton of managers don't want to adopt it at all. But because it has become a sort of industry standard thing, it becomes (I hate this word, but it's necessary here) best practices. Once something is adopted widely, it becomes compulsory. An HR manager says, "Look, when in Rome... And it's a hedge against claims... and creates a nice feel good story."

You are completely missing my point, which is that the people behind DEI efforts are *not* trying to create six-figure jobs for DEI managers. They are trying to change society, but they aren't changing much. But they are providing a fig-leaf for large corporations.

It's not speculative at all. Anything related to Trump is front page immediately. We heard about hookers and golden showers in Moscow for months, and no one in the media stepped back and asked if that was reckless. Then it was proven to be bullshit, and nobody in the media apologized for any of it. All is fair with the Orange Man.

He deserves this, no doubt, and courts it, but still - it is a double standard.

Are there double standards? Sure. (For example, if Joe Biden said crazy things that Trump says all the time, the media would completely flip out, and rightly so. Trump says them and it's not news.) Does that mean the left is authoritarian? No.

The Post wasn't showing dick pics. The Post was merely writing about a laptop that had all sorts of material damaging to Joe and Hunter on it.

I share your lack of interest in dick pics. The Post was exercising free expression - providing a story of public interest. A late campaign surprise, like Hillary's strategic drop of the "grab them by the pussy" tape. The Post story was every bit as newsworthy as the Access Hollywood interview of Trump. One was carried in every media outlet on earth. The other was ignored in legacy media and silenced in social media.

There was and is widespread skepticism about what was actually on the laptop, because of questions about the chain of custody and because of the poor credibility of key people (e.g., Giuliani) involved in the story. (The fact that some contents of the laptop are legit does not, of course, mean that everything on it is legit.)

This country has many, many, many media outlets. Some ran the story, and some did not, each according to its own editorial standards. The government prevented none of them publishing.

In other words, there is no First Amendment issue here, period, full stop. There is no authoritarianism going on in this story. Indeed, the federal government was, at the time, run by Trump, so I suppose it's a testament to our media's editorial independence that many outlets felt free not to run the story.

(I'll reply in advance to your facile attempt to distinguish the stories by stating one involves the son of a candidate rather than the candidate by noting the laptop contained info regarding Joe, not just Hunter.)

We both know that the allegations about Joe and the Ukrainian prosecutor are empty, and that the GOP wanted the Hunter Biden dick pics in the news before the election. That was the point.

Right, just like Twitter's refusal to allow links to the Times' publishing of Trump's stolen tax return showing a $900mil loss.

God help anyone who tries to defend the application of Twitter's policies. A good friend was a top lawyer there. It's an impossible job.

Actually, it's a couple guys in the C Suite of Twitter who were working with NSA and FBI folks to massage narratives. I mean, you could read Bari Weiss on this. And you probably did read her when she was at the Times. But then she started criticizing the narratives you prefer, so you'll of course assert that all of the info she published about Twitter after Musk bought it establishing govt-concerted efforts to control what was said on the platform are just... quackery.

I have looked at what she and Taibbi came up with from what Musk gave them, and it was the weakest of weak sauce, twisted and amplified in the retelling by the kind of morons on Twitter whom you would try to escape at a party.

Who, specifically, "in the C Suite of Twitter" do you think was "working with the NSA and folks to massage narratives." Facts, or it didn't happen.

You're not seriously buying that hysterical conspiracy theory that Trump has an army of bureaucrats placed in positions to grant him the election in 2024.

No, I'm pointing out that MAGA Republicans are currently holding seats in the Senate and Congress, statewide office in many states, and many state legislative seats. This is not a secret or a conspiracy theory.

Totally agree. The right is far more aggressive and seeking direct control. Hence, I referred to it as Orwellian. Boot on the neck. Couldn't agree with you more. The left, however, is for more effective, as it is capturing the culture - the legacy media, a large chunk of social media, academia, corporate management. And as Huxley described in Brave New World, it is suggesting, both carrot and stick in hand, that the masses had better take their Soma and do as the People Who Know Best (maleducated knuckleheads of our strata who fancy ourselves wise wonks) tell them to do. It is subtle, but it's also obvious. You have to be willfully obtuse to miss it.

I'm glad you perceive reality, but your grasp of cause and effect is weak. The "left" is not "capturing the culture." There's no carrot and no stick. It's the other way around. The culture has changed. What most people want is where most media, business and schools are. It's not like mainstream institutions were all taken over by Maoists who brainwashed everyone.

The mainstream is most of the country. It changes, because that's what it does, and yes, the country has been mostly growing more liberal and less conservative for decades. The "left" of your imagination is a tiny fraction of people who have almost never had power and almost never will have power. Conservatives are a much larger fraction primarily motivated by resistance to and grievance about social change. (Hence "Make American Great Again.")

See my earlier comment about "best practices." It's pretty much compulsory, and you'd be an utter fool to argue against its adoption at any stage. The smarter play is to adopt, let it fail as it often does, or succeed, and wait out the current moral panic over "equity" and "inequality" until the thing burns out from its own heat, as moral panics and fashionable manias will.

Thanks for the advice, but I am familiar with the way these issues play out within actual companies, large and small.