Hodad

I have some of you useless trolls on ignore, but thanks for showing me that particular bit of idiocy. You people are the weirdest blend of ignorance and confidence. OF COURSE Hitler undermined the press as a way of controlling the narrative. Jeebus. Read a book. Go to school. Something. Lügenpresse = "lying press" = "fake news" The whole point of the "fake news" campaign was to undermine the free press and establish Trump and his cronies as the sole source of "truth." Also the unironic name of his personal media platform. Your unhinged rants about the press make it pretty clear that the tactic had great effect on you. It's never quite clear whether you'd be better fitted for a brown shirt or a straight jacket.

While in general they had different motivations, I'd say the motivation for undermining the legitimacy of the republic is the same: to prime an audience for a consolidation of power in service of "restoration." The tried-and-true tactics that are strikingly similar. And the effect of those tactics on their cultish followers.

Aw, the pitiful thing is you probably believe this. Bless your heart.

To "school" someone you'd do better to try saying something remotely intelligent. I simply can't take you seriously. It's like trying to argue with a crazy guy ranting on a street corner.

"Funny" enough, one of Hitler's greatest tactics was undermining the media but calling it, essentially, "fake news." Scapegoating and alienating groups of people like immigrants and the elite. Undermining the entire legitimacy of the republic. Attempting a coup--and running for election afterward. Decrying globalism while staging a populist takeover of conservative politics. All part of his vision to Make Germany Great Again! And, of course, his most devoted followers believed they were supporting a savior rather than a monster. Hm...

The regurgitated crap in your own twisted, private "reality" is not accepted knowledge. 90% of it is pure bullshit, so you get called on it. What. Go watch more FOX broadcasts from the future on your magic TV.?

You asked for data. I provided multiple examples of studies--of which there are many--that are as simple as name swaps on resumes, controlling for all other variables. You promptly ignored them and returned to telling me about your perception. Okay. And no, by accident of birth I've had things pretty easy. I wasn't born to money, but as a straight, white male I get the benefit of the doubt every time. The power structure works in my favor, so I've never experienced real discrimination. I sure have seen it in the workplace though. It doesn't mean I didn't have to work hard to get where I am. (I'm a HENRY at this point.) But it's objectively true that I would have had to work X% harder if I had been a minority or a woman.

To be blunt, it feels a lot like you're asking me for data that shows water is wet or the sky is blue. There is nothing remotely controversial about what I've said. It's been an area of formal study for literally decades. There are mountains of books--both broad and specialized--examining the causes of systemic discrimination and marginilization. They make movies about it. Bias mitigation strategies are in place at every big business and major institution. This feels really reductive, because you can observe biases against women and minorities in nearly every facet of our society, but even if you just look at basic similarity bias it should be obvious that in a power structure dominated by white men, white men have an advantage. And people who are ignorant of that bias certainly aren't going to control for it. Again, classic name switch studies are very good at revealing bias. This is a replicable study that has been repeated by many institutions over the years, but this example is probably aligned to the time you were applying for jobs. Net net is that controlling for variables in resume quality, resumes with traditionally Black or Black-sounding names needed 50% more submissions to get a callback. The same differential as 8 years of experience. And that's before anyone sits down for an interview, where familiarity bias creates an even larger gap. Here's another broader trend (which I've discussed with associates recently): resume "whitening." In fact, companies are more than twice as likely to call minority applicants for interviews if they submit whitened resumes than candidates who reveal their race—and this discriminatory practice is just as strong for businesses that claim to value diversity as those that don’t. Here's an interesting gender swap. Women are "penalized" in hiring for having very high grades. I conducted an audit study by submitting 2,106 job applications that experimentally manipulated applicants’ GPA, gender, and college major. Although GPA matters little for men, women benefit from moderate achievement but not high achievement. As a result, high-achieving men are called back significantly more often than high-achieving women—at a rate of nearly 2-to-1. Or numerous studies that identify massive gaps in promotions for women as prestige increases. This is a recent one. In the paper, “’Potential’ and the Gender Promotion Gap,” Li found that on average, women received higher performance ratings than male employees, but received 8.3% lower ratings for potential than men. The result was that female employees on average were 14% less likely to be promoted than their male colleagues. To determine whether women and men were assessed the same in terms of their potential, Li and co-researchers Alan Benson and Kelly Shue studied data on 30,000 management-track employees at a large North American retail chain between February 2009 and October 2015. Women made up about 56% of entry-level workers at the company. Rising through the ranks, women made up 48% of department managers, 35% of store managers, and 14% of district managers. Look, obviously we're not even really scratching the surface here. I'm not going to be able to give you a sociology course, let alone a rich sociology education. But the point is that nobody is "making up" issues of race and gender discrimination in this county. It ranges from overt discrimination to unconscious bias, but it's real and it's everywhere. I threw a few at you from hiring, but there are thousands of studies that identify the same trends in nearly every facet of life. When you deny that these things exist--phenomena that are very well documented--it feels a lot like willful blindness to support a political narrative. I'm glad that you're happy with what you overcame and with what you achieved. That's great. But your feelings don't invalidate the exhaustive research, and they certainly don't invalidate the feelings--the discouragement and depression--of people who are not overcoming their headwinds and are justifiably pissed about it.

We've had versions of this conversation several times before. You say there's no barrier, but then also point out the aggressions and disproportionate hardships you--and now your wife--have overcome but you made it. Which makes this the point at which I say "Thanks for helping to make my point." The possibility is not the same as the probability. Great that you overcame the systemic and cultural headwinds to achieve level of success with which you are happy. Just imagine how much further along you'd be if you worked just as hard while enjoying the tailwinds that are the "birthright" of every white male. Sure it's possible to finish a marathon if someone shackles you with 10 pound ankle weights, but you won't win, and a lot of people will give up long before the finish, because there's no winning a rigged race. All those things you and your wife have overcome isn't proof that there's no systemic and cultural bias. It's proof that there is. White privilege is very real. The patriarchy is very real. They are persistent and pernicious, and they reliably show up in the data.

Congrats. You've managed to be outraged about something that has been the status quo for both parties for 75 years. That's a lot of faux outrage to muster, but I knew you had it in you. Long, slow clap.

Why don't you go back to pretending to have me on ignore? I'm posting for people smart enough to follow an argument.

So, your argument here boils down to the idea that marginalized people shouldn't complain or expect equal access to the things they want, unless they also clamor for access to things they don't want? Sorry, but that's crap, and not how equality works, lol. And yes, patriarchy is real and a real problem. The same as institutional racism. White, male dominance of society isn't a switch that one simply turns off. There are myriad ingrained biases and habits that must be actively unlearned and overcome. There's exhaustive research on gender bias (in multiple forms) in schools, business, politics and everywhere else. It's a cradle-to-grave problem. If you don't want to read any of it, simply consider education. Teaching has always been dominated by women--75%ish, even today. But Principals were overwhelmingly men. Some progress has been made there of late, but even today males are dramatically overrepresented as a share of pipeline. That's a microcosm of the general social problem. Women are now allowed in the workplace--or at least tolerated in most professions. But they are still routinely overlooked and underrepresented when it comes to leadership positions.

You might have to shout that if you want the constitutional "originalists" justices to hear. They always duck under the bench when those facts are mentioned.

Wow, you've got it all figured out. The men who are currently absentee parents should be actively teaching their children to not give a damn. And the kids should be poorer and hungrier while they learn those painful lessons. About 23% of American kids are in single-family homes. It's about 21% in the UK and 18% in Canada, our closest cultural analogues. Yet there are nowhere -- not even remotely -- close to the number of mass killings. The murder rate in the US is 6x the UK and 3x Canada. And murders/deaths by gun and mass shootings are all even more dramatically gapped. So you can toss out that bit of moralizing. Hm. There must be some difference in these countries. Something that rhymes with nuns?

This "war on men" nonsense is the craziest phony victimhood narrative I have ever seen. Men are dramatically overrepresented in every position of power from business to politics. The idea that we're, as a gender, struggling or having a hard time is as silly as the people who complain about "discrimination" against whites. All of it boils down to men--usually white-- feeling resentful about the erosion of privelege on a gradually leveling playing field.

Eh, he's a polished, well-spoken politician who quietly holds extremist views. Which is worrisome. I'd prefer a bombastic fool like Trump or MTG represent those positions than someone clever enough to make specious arguments that better sell bad policy to the casual voters.

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world--and the most gun violence and mass shootings. If that's your idea of policy that "works" I'd prefer a broken system.?‍♀️

Both appear to be addictive and deadly. But at least the oxyheads are only killing themselves.

The 2nd amendment doesn't have to be cancelled. We have long had regulation of "arms" which can be owned and conditions under which certain arms may be owned.

“For myself, I would see the White Tree flower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as a queen among other queens: not a mistress of many slaves, nay, not even a kind mistress of willing slaves [Galadriel!]. War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour us all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Numenor; and I would have loved her for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise.” Faramir, The Two Towers, Book 2, “Chapter V: The Window on the West,” p. 678-9.

It's tragic how narrow the view is for these people. Tens of thousands of religions in the world and they think that: A. There's one "true" religion B. They were lucky enough to find truth in an old book assembled by old men There's not a bit of logic or sense to it, but they'll fall all over themselves to try to rationalize it. I say if you're the sort of person who finds religion a comfort, just enjoy it. They should spare themselves the embarrassment and spare the rest of us tendonitis from facepalming

There are intelligent religious people. None of them are fundamentalists. I told my 9 year old about the Ark myth and he laughed out loud at the absurdity of it. Yep, not even children are that simple.

Honestly, I'm very confused that in one post you dismiss the very real issues with toxic masculinity, and then I'm this post write a case study about it. The problem isn't caused by acknowledging toxic masculinity, by by the toxicity itself. Guns aren't the only way to kill people, but they're clearly the most common and most convenient. It's a tool for killing. And the availability of tools (or anything, really) does make a difference in his often they are itself. That's an unbelievable fact, and why the notion of controlled distribution of anything exists. I'll grant that even if we eliminated guns entirely it wouldn't eliminate murder entirely, or even mass murder, but it absolutely would reduce those deaths significantly by making the execution of such activity dramatically more difficult.

Trump losing and then just saying that he's won sounds pretty familiar. Hm...

1. Literally nobody thinks that. So you just enjoy your masturbatory hate-fest, as usual. 2. There are 6000+ Palestinian casualties already. 2-3K children. How hard do you think it will be to recruit the next generation of terrorists who think their Israeli rulers are monsters? The cycle of dehumanization continues.