Tectonic Shift in Almost Everything?

[NeuroTypical]

39 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Gab

I had to look it up, and read the Wiki article.   Sounds like a cesspool.   I wondered where Milo Yiannopolous went.  

But again -

1. Gab: fringey extreme and increasingly inactive platform with a paltry 100k active users worldwide.  You find no end of horrible racist violent folks who call themselves conservative. 

2. Corporate sponsored Employee Resource Groups found in (for example) 90+% of Fortune 500 companies: Where leftie progressives trained in the progressive landscape of the modern American University find a welcoming and supportive home for their progressive activism.   Budgets for training and organizing.  Time spent on the clock.  I find no end of antimerit, antiracist, anticapitalist, pro radical gender theory people. 

It's not a valid compare.  

 

From where I'm standing, 

[Phoenix_person]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I had to look it up, and read the Wiki article.   Sounds like a cesspool.   I wondered where Milo Yiannopolous went.  

But again -

1. Gab: fringey extreme and increasingly inactive platform with a paltry 100k active users worldwide.  You find no end of horrible racist violent folks who call themselves conservative. 

2. Corporate sponsored Employee Resource Groups found in (for example) 90+% of Fortune 500 companies: Where leftie progressives trained in the progressive landscape of the modern American University find a welcoming and supportive home for their progressive activism.   Budgets for training and organizing.  Time spent on the clock.  I find no end of antimerit, antiracist, anticapitalist, pro radical gender theory people. 

It's not a valid compare.  

 

From where I'm standing, 

You don't think internet Nazis have day jobs? And as I said, the reason Gab had my attention at all is because it had attracted elected officials and Trump chums like Roger Stone. If your congressman or state senator was hanging out in Nazi cesspools, I assume you'd have thoughts on that, correct?

Edited Friday at 04:17 AM by Phoenix_person

[Phoenix_person]

Also, now that I think about it, one of the elected officials over there on Gab is none other than Trump's favorite frat boy, Matt Gaetz. Those fringe extremists were a sealed ethics report away from having an AG in their pocket.

[Carborendum]

14 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

The idea that merit has no place alongside DEI is a conservative lie. There's plenty of room for both to coexist. It doesn't always work put that way because humans are flawed, but I suppose having Fox News personalities in high government positions goes to show that traditional meritocracy isn't immune from human error either.

While it may not be clear to people who may be reading you for the first time, I do recall some of your earlier comments.  And based on those past comments, I agree more than I disagree.  The problem is that we have experienced different things when we consider the method by which such a philosophy has been applied in common practice.

The method by which you have applied it in your own business is perfectly reasonable.  The down side of that method -- you have admitted that (correct me if I misunderstood you) you've found yourselves understaffed. And this was the exact problem that the FAA was/is having.

I know mathematically why that was a foregone conclusion.  But I'm wondering what your explanation for that is.

Edited Friday at 12:56 PM by Carborendum

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

While it may not be clear to people who may be reading you for the first time, I do recall some of your earlier comments.  And based on those past comments, I agree more than I disagree.  The problem is that we have experienced different things when we consider the method by which such a philosophy has been applied in common practice.

The method by which you have applied it in your own business is perfectly reasonable.  The down side of that method -- you have admitted that (correct me if I misunderstood you) you've found yourselves understaffed. And this was the exact problem that the FAA was/is having.

I know mathematically why that was a foregone conclusion.  But I'm wondering what your explanation for that is.

I'm not sure that I quite understand what you're asking. If I've ever found myself spread thin at work in the past, it's been because of a lack of qualified employees and completely unrelated to DEI. This was highlighted during COVID when a lot of service industry workers left the industry altogether. People burn out easily in that line of work when there isn't a global pandemic. The restaurant I worked at ended up hiring virtually anyone who'd ever worked a summer job at McDonald's. It was messy, but restaurant work often is. 

At my most recent job at the now-shuttered Spectrum call center in town, *I* was the DEI hire. I had no prior experience or qualifications for that job, they were clearly trying to fill a quota for veteran hiring. To their credit, they had an excellent training program, and I think I could have done well there. I ended up leaving because the promise of a schedule more favorable to seeing my son ended up being fruitless, and it turns out I would have been laid off anyway. FWIW though, that was culturally one of the best workplaces I've been in, lots of terrific people from a very wide range of backgrounds. I just wish the hours had been more favorable. It's hard to justify less time with my son for a job when I already get $4k/mo from the VA.

Keep in mind, I've never worked a job where a college degree was required (because I don't have one). A lot of the work I've done in the past can be taught to virtually anyone with a GED and a decent head on their shoulders. As I said, work shortages in my workplaces were usually related to lack of applicants. 

[NeuroTypical]

10 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

You don't think internet Nazis have day jobs?

Again, difference between a nazi with a day job, and a corporate landscape full of antimerit anticapitalists, who actually are paid by their employers to attend symposia and read books and hire guest speakers to forward such notions.   Alt-right violent extremists of any stripe will tend to be fired if found out.

For 4 years I hung out with those people weekly.  I wanted to learn everything about them I could.  They paid for me to attend symposia.   I ran the monthly bookclub where we read Kendi's How to be an Antiracist, with an entire chapter against merit, and an entire chapter against capitalism.  I helped with the budget so they could pay thousands for a guest lecturer to help us understand stuff like white privilege and systemic racism, with accompanying furrowed brows and disgust directed against merit and capitalism.  I'm telling you that they lived and breathed anti-merit anti-capitalism.  Such sentiments were expressed sometimes weekly, usually at least monthly.  Since the election with all the merit vs. DEI talk, the rhetoric in the group has increased by a lot.   The more I learned in that group, the more I learned about how such funded groups exist throughout corporate culture.  My management team tells me the reason for this is employee retention.  Until the election, every study done on college grads told us they care greatly about an employers social messaging, and will not work for/stay with an employer that isn't woke enough.

Your statement is "The idea that merit has no place alongside DEI is a conservative lie."  Your statement is incorrect.     It's ok to take a loss on this particular point bud.  You have a plethora of arguable and defendable points that remain valid, and I'm still glad you drop by every now and then to duke it out with us.

 

10 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

And as I said, the reason Gab had my attention at all is because it had attracted elected officials and Trump chums like Roger Stone. If your congressman or state senator was hanging out in Nazi cesspools, I assume you'd have thoughts on that, correct?

I have the same thoughts about elected reps being on Gab, as I have about you being on Gab.   I'm pretty sure that you're not a vile nazi.  After reading the wiki article, I see the best criticisms are "Elected (R) is on Gab, and even posts there".  If there was something worse, a specific post, a claim, a screen grab, a link to something damning, it would have been in the article, or in your comments on this thread.  So it's a safe assumption none of them are vile nazis either.  

I mean, am I wrong?  Is just having an active account on Gab enough to arouse suspicion?  Consider your involvement and engagement on Gab before you answer...

Edited Friday at 02:57 PM by NeuroTypical

[Phoenix_person]

20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Again, difference between a nazi with a day job, and a corporate landscape full of antimerit anticapitalists, who actually are paid by their employers to attend symposia and read books and hire guest speakers to forward such notions.   Alt-right violent extremists of any stripe will tend to be fired if found out.

For 4 years I hung out with those people weekly.  I wanted to learn everything about them I could.  They paid for me to attend symposia.   I ran the monthly bookclub where we read Kendi's How to be an Antiracist, with an entire chapter against merit, and an entire chapter against capitalism.  I helped with the budget so they could pay thousands for a guest lecturer to help us understand stuff like white privilege and systemic racism, with accompanying furrowed brows and disgust directed against merit and capitalism.  I'm telling you that they lived and breathed anti-merit anti-capitalism.  Such sentiments were expressed sometimes weekly, usually at least monthly.  Since the election with all the merit vs. DEI talk, the rhetoric in the group has increased by a lot.   The more I learned in that group, the more I learned about how such funded groups exist throughout corporate culture.  My management team tells me the reason for this is employee retention.  Until the election, every study done on college grads told us they care greatly about an employers social messaging, and will not work for/stay with an employer that isn't woke enough.

Your statement is "The idea that merit has no place alongside DEI is a conservative lie."  Your statement is incorrect.     It's ok to take a loss on this particular point bud.  You have a plethora of arguable and defendable points that remain valid, and I'm still glad you drop by every now and then to duke it out with us.

I'll concede your point on this one. 

20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I have the same thoughts about elected reps being on Gab, as I have about you being on Gab.   I'm pretty sure that you're not a vile nazi.  After reading the wiki article, I see the best criticisms are "Elected (R) is on Gab, and even posts there".  If there was something worse, a specific post, a claim, a screen grab, a link to something damning, it would have been in the article, or in your comments on this thread.  So it's a safe assumption none of them are vile nazis either.  

I mean, am I wrong?  Is just having an active account on Gab enough to arouse suspicion?  Consider your involvement and engagement on Gab before you answer...

I'm not going back for screengrabs, and it's been over 3 years since I've been active there. I was there to stir the pot. The politicians I saw there were not. That much was clear to me. If you want more than that, feel free to swim in the cesspool yourself. As for me, I'm perfectly capable of observing when political figures are overly welcome in nazi spaces and when they are not. I don't expect you to take my word for it, but that's going to be all you get from me. I turned my back on that particular online activity for a reason. That place is vile, hateful, and not worth my time. But I know what I observed there. Sometimes you have to get in the mud to see the dirt. I'm done playing in mud.

[NeuroTypical]

12 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

I was there to stir the pot. The politicians I saw there were not.

I believe you.  Politicians grab votes where they can get 'em, by pandering as much as they can without alienating their other voters.  Sending affirming messages to horrible people while maintaining plausible deniability about how they're not themselves horrible, is maybe not politics 101, but it's absolutely politics 212.

Like after George Floyd, when the Dems saw all the angry people pouring into the street, and did their best to get out in front to be seen as leaders.  While also enacting policy and law changes that directly aided the lawless violent destructive elements in the movement.

Here's the left wing's version of elected republicans on Gab:

 

Quote

Sometimes you have to get in the mud to see the dirt. I'm done playing in mud.

Aww, so you do care!  You posting here is explicit admission that thirdhour is not a muddy cesspool!  Nicest thing anyone has said to me all week.       You're ok in my book, BP.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

I'm not sure that I quite understand what you're asking. If I've ever found myself spread thin at work in the past, it's been because of a lack of qualified employees and completely unrelated to DEI.

I have to apologize.  I went back and read what you had previously posted and got some things mixed up.  That's what I get for multi-tasking.

The pheneomenon I was describing (I'd be curious to hear if you've seen the same thing) is that a hiring manager says:

 "We need 10 individuals with qualifications X, Y, & Z.  Therefore find 30 people with these qualifications, then from that pool of qualified people, hire the diversity backgrounds necessary to fill the quota."

1. That was the theory behind affirmative action way back when it was introduced in the 80s.  But in practice, it was never about qualifications.  It was all about the diversity regardless of the qualifications.

2. Some places absolutely had to abide by qualifications.  But they found it difficult to fill the quota*.  So, to maintain the proper proportions, they simply hired fewer people.  As a result, the overall office was overloaded and performance suffered because of overwork.  (i.e. they had to reduce numbers to fill the quota of qualified people.)  This is what happened to the FAA.  I believe they were all qualified people.  But due to staffing shortages, they were overworked.

*Quota: The reason the quota system doesn't work is that it assumes that everyone in the world is a commodity.  The problem here is culture and biology.  Not everyone WANTS to do the same thing.  Even if we wiped out all bigoted feelings from every heart, people would still have different desires and proclivities because of how they were raised and what they were taught.

• You have poor people (who are disproportionately black) who are in failing school systems.  How many of them are going to become engineers?
• You have 1st generation immigrants (who are disproportionately Hispanic) who have a more limited vocabulary.  How many of them are going to become lawyers?
• You have Asians (who are disproportionately shorter and smaller).  How many of them are going into the NBA or NFL?
• You have Jews (who average 15 points higher on IQ scores).  How many of them are going into scholastic endeavors?  A LOT MORE.
• Women simply don't like the idea of becoming engineers and accountants at the rate that men do.  But we need to have 50/50 split in the workforce?

Because of this, you're going to mathematically create a situation where underqualified people will be hired in place of more qualified individuals.

While I admit that we (all human beings, not just America) may never be completely free of racist individuals, we're actually at a good point in America today.  We always need to work on it.  But forcing people into jobs they don't really want is not the way to do it.

Edited Friday at 03:56 PM by Carborendum

[Phoenix_person]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I believe you.  Politicians grab votes where they can get 'em, by pandering as much as they can without alienating their other voters.  Sending affirming messages to horrible people while maintaining plausible deniability about how they're not themselves horrible, is maybe not politics 101, but it's absolutely politics 212.

Like after George Floyd, when the Dems saw all the angry people pouring into the street, and did their best to get out in front to be seen as leaders. 

You should ask Minneapolis leftists what they think of Tim Walz. Some of the answers may surprise you. My impression of the Dem response to George Floyd was that they wanted solidarity and justice without violence. There were far more cities (like mine) with peaceful protests led/attended by local political figures than there were ones that saw violence, and I never saw any Dems condoning or encouraging the violent protests. I've seen elected Republicans push hateful WRT-fueled views. Yes, the photo above is cringe-worthy. I wouldn't call it hateful, personally. Pandering, absolutely. And maybe that's all the Gab folks were doing. Personally, I don't trust people who pander to racists and nazis.

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

While also enacting policy and law changes that directly aided the lawless violent destructive elements in the movement.

Can you be more specific?

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Here's the left wing's version of elected republicans on Gab:

Cringe-worthy, to say the least. But I don't know that I'd compare it to people pandering to literal Nazis.

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Aww, so you do care!  You posting here is explicit admission that thirdhour is not a muddy cesspool!  Nicest thing anyone has said to me all week.       You're ok in my book, BP.

This place isn't hateful or a cesspool, but it does stress me out sometimes. 😅

Edited Friday at 08:07 PM by Phoenix_person

[Phoenix_person]

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The pheneomenon I was describing (I'd be curious to hear if you've seen the same thing) is that a hiring manager says:

 "We need 10 individuals with qualifications X, Y, & Z.  Therefore find 30 people with these qualifications, then from that pool of qualified people, hire the diversity backgrounds necessary to fill the quota."

As I said, I've never worked any place where qualifications would be a deal-breaker. The thing is, DEI specifically was never strictly about hiring practices, that was affirmative action. The latter was a precursor to the former. DEI sought to ensure that hiring practices were fair and that the people who were hired were treated fairly and set up for success. As you said, it wasn't a perfect system in practice. But in a country that still has some very racist pockets and that is trying to erase an entire demographic of 2M+ people (the trans community), I think there's still a need for DEI. You may not agree with trans people being trans, but I would hope that you can agree that being trans shouldn't be a barrier in obtaining or keeping a job that the person is fully qualified for.

DEI exists to protect the most vulnerable among us, which might be why people from privilege struggle to see its value. I guess I'm just not seeing the reasoning behind axing DEI altogether instead of trying to reform it. I think both sides of the aisle get overly stuck in "all or nothing" thinking sometimes, and it's giving some of us whiplash. 

Edited Friday at 04:16 PM by Phoenix_person

[Ironhold]

About BLM...

The map I attached is one I prepared a few years ago. It's of a portion of the town I live in.

Notice the red dot. 

That red dot is a small rise overlooking the main highway through town. It's where the local BLM group staged themselves in order to protest while everything was happening. 

Note how close it is to the intersection of Highway 190 - now Business 190 - and Martin Luther King Drive. That intersection is a four-way intersection governed by traffic lights, with a Chevron station opposite MLK being the fourth intersection. It's a bit screwy, but it's how things are set up. 

When traffic is heavy, the line of cars waiting to go eastbound on 190 can actually back up as far as that red dot. 

One day, traffic was indeed backed up that far when some of the BLM protestors saw what they thought was one driver making an obscene gesture towards them. Those protestors got in their vehicles and proceeded to chase the driver down the road. When the driver pulled in somewhere, they boxed her in and started verbally confronting her.

The minute this story broke, public support plummeted. These protestors had become a part of the landscape because they were just standing there peacefully and protesting, but in one single moment of anger these individuals destroyed whatever goodwill and general disinterest the town might have had. Everyone was now paying attention, but for all the wrong reasons. 

In time, the number of protestors dwindled until finally there was nobody still out protesting. 

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

DEI sought to ensure that hiring practices were fair and that the people who were hired were treated fairly and set up for success. As you said, it wasn't a perfect system in practice.

Well, that's the trick, isn't it?  How many organizations actually "did it right?"  By my experience, it is a pretty low percentage.  And we've had some very stark examples of where "the practice" fell far from the theory/intent.

Further, unlike a free market system, when (not if) something goes wrong, it is difficult to remedy the situation because of the quotas and the policies in place.

Free market doesn't always get it right.  As you cited: interviews and resumes don't tell the whole story.  But it gets it right more often because it works with human nature rather than against it.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

But in a country that still has some very racist pockets and that is trying to erase an entire demographic of 2M+ people (the trans community), I think there's still a need for DEI. You may not agree with trans people being trans, but I would hope that you can agree that being trans shouldn't be a barrier in obtaining or keeping a job that the person is fully qualified for.

1. I disagree that we're trying to "erase" people (the tenor of that accusation is to kill them). 

2. How can I disagree with people "being" trans?  Of course they exist.  But that doesn't mean that I have to like that fact any more than I have to "like" the fact that homeless people are a part of society.  Doesn't mean I want to kill them.  It means I want to help them.

3. The trans movement would go a LOT further if they were willing to admit that there needs to be a specific, verifiable characteristic that makes someone "trans".  "I just feel it" is certainly not enough.  The fact that male prisoners are "claiming" they are women, for the sole purpose of having free access to female cell mates to rape them is abhorrent.  Yet the movement, as it is, would endorse and encourage this behavior that is 100% preventable.  It's a rare crime that is 100% preventable.  But this is one of them.  And the movement doesn't forbid it.  It facilitates it.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

DEI exists to protect the most vulnerable among us, which might be why people from privilege struggle to see its value. I guess I'm just not seeing the reasoning behind axing DEI altogether instead of trying to reform it. I think both sides of the aisle get overly stuck in "all or nothing" thinking sometimes, and it's giving some of us whiplash. 

I have yet to see evidence that it actually does this.  It's a wonderful thing to say what a goal/intent is when it gives us the warm fuzzies.  But the success rate vs the unintended consequences must be considered.  And so far, I've only seen negatives to it in my profession.

Edited Friday at 05:21 PM by Carborendum

[Traveler]

I will admit that there are a lot of things for which I have somewhat of an opinion but have not done a great deal of research.  White supremacy and Nazi organizations are among such things.  I do not believe that White Supremacy and Nazi organizations amount to much of anything in today’s landscape – I do not believe they are even worth the time to attempt in depth attention.  In essence it is my unstudied in depth thinking that what does exist are in essence poorly funded copy-cat want-to-be fringe efforts by pseudo nut jobs.  They may run some websites and fund some paramilitary militia type organizations – they may even have some international connections into human trafficking and drugs.  But I do not believe they have the expertise to deal with a decent city police organization.  Not 100% sure but I do not think White Supremacy and Nazis are much of any concern for @mirkwood .  And of all the possibilities on the forum I would think he has more experience and knowledge in dealing with White Supremacist and Nazis.

It is my opinion that the fear of such organizations are more political (as in political distraction) than actual.  For example, for all the fuss about the so-called Jan-6 insurrection coup d'état – what does anyone know about the hangman gallows (or the pipe bomb) and why it took the FBI or any other law inforcement so long to deal with them?  And who was, in reality, actuality behind either or both?  Compare all that to how easy it is to follow BLM funding and activities, not just by law enforcement but even second rate politically biased journalists.

I am of the opinion (not a deep or unchangeable opinion) that if the truth was known – the antisemitic support at elite college campuses (mostly or exclusively in very liberal or blue cities and states) are better funded and politically backed (either openly or in secret) than any White Supremacy or Nazi organizations that so many liberals are having a coronary about.

 

The Traveler

[mirkwood]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

Not 100% sure but I do not think White Supremacy and Nazis are much of any concern for @mirkwood .  And of all the possibilities on the forum I would think he has more experience and knowledge in dealing with White Supremacist and Nazis.

 

 

To my knowledge I have never met a Nazi.  I have dealt with white supremacists.  There are aryan gangs and I view them through that lens (street gang lens.)

[Traveler]

On 3/8/2025 at 3:48 PM, mirkwood said:

 

To my knowledge I have never met a Nazi.  I have dealt with white supremacists.  There are aryan gangs and I view them through that lens (street gang lens.)

This is what I expected but to clarify for both myself and other readers – street gangs, though a public threat, are territorial and lack the sophistication to operate effectively beyond their specific and limited geographical turf.  They are not a national threat that requires (or even needs) federal oversite and coordination.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

street gangs, though a public threat, are territorial and lack the sophistication to operate effectively beyond their specific and limited geographical turf.  They are not a national threat 

It's easier for the gadiantons to get stuff done if folks don't understand them or underestimate them.

[mirkwood]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

This is what I expected but to clarify for both myself and other readers – street gangs, though a public threat, are territorial and lack the sophistication to operate effectively beyond their specific and limited geographical turf.  They are not a national threat that requires (or even needs) federal oversite and coordination.

 

The Traveler

 

I would not call them a national threat as you are describing.  Some of them are actually sophisticated in some of their operational organization.

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's easier for the gadiantons to get stuff done if folks don't understand them or underestimate them.

 

Street gangs are not what we as LDS would think of as Gadiantons/secret combinations, though they have some similar behavior patterns.  Your statement is otherwise 100% accurate.

Edited Monday at 08:52 PM by mirkwood

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

 

Street gangs are not what we as LDS would think of as Gadiantons/secret combinations, though they have some similar behavior patterns. 

@mirkwood What's your take on transnational criminal orgs like Tren de Aragua, or the various cartels that moved their MJ operations into the US to take advantage of legalized MJ?

Edited Monday at 09:53 PM by NeuroTypical

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

@mirkwood What's your take on transnational criminal orgs like Tren de Aragua, or the various cartels that moved their MJ operations into the US to take advantage of legalized MJ?

 

Now the drug cartels are getting closer to what the BOM talks about when speaking of secret combinations.  They have political influence, but only in their own countries.  The top levels of the cartels are running businesses...literally, they operate like a business.  They use groups like Tren de Aragua, but what most people don't understand is a group like TDA will run amok with thier own agendas as well.

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, mirkwood said:

 

I would not call them a national threat as you are describing.  Some of them are actually sophisticated in some of their operational organization.

I sometimes do not express in depth all that I am thinking.   I intended to purport that street gangs, even with all their local sophistication are not beyond the capabilities of the local police.  I am of the mind that our federal authorities (like the FBI) and our federal elected politicians would be better utilized with focus on organizations beyond the scop of local police.

 

The Traveler