|
I only just realized how much he looks like the little dude from Workaholics. ed: New page, whoops, I'm referring to Steven Crowder
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:48 |
|
|
I had that same reaction. It's uncanny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Off topic, but I have a random, general question. The way affirmative action works is that if you have two roughly equally qualified people applying for a university, the person who happens to be in a minority usually gets preferential treatment, right? Yeah, a lot of people (even many liberals) think that Affirmative Action means that an illiterate black kid from the ghetto gets in over their special snowflake with a 5.0 GPA and a 2400 and ten 5's on AP exams, whereas it actually means "hey, you're hiring a disproportionately large number of white guys, might wanna do something about that" or "this underprivileged black kid still managed to do at least 90% as well on the SAT and whatnot as this other wealthy white kid, so we'll take him".
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
He was in your childhood and you may have never known it if you watched Arthur in 2000 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Off topic, but I have a random, general question. The way affirmative action works is that if you have two roughly equally qualified people applying for a university, the person who happens to be in a minority usually gets preferential treatment, right? From what I've seen it depends on the institution you're at, there isn't a set standard. Honestly if anything gives you preferential treatment it's probably needs based more than anything else (that's why Asians in the US are commonly discriminated against even in low Asian states). If both candidates are wealthy and from the suburbs then great, but more often it's probably that one's a white dude from the suburbs and one is a poor black or hispanic guy from the city, and they let them in specifically due to being poor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
AM Radio will be king once more!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:From what I've seen it depends on the institution you're at, there isn't a set standard. Honestly if anything gives you preferential treatment it's probably needs based more than anything else (that's why Asians in the US are commonly discriminated against even in low Asian states). If both candidates are wealthy and from the suburbs then great, but more often it's probably that one's a white dude from the suburbs and one is a poor black or hispanic guy from the city, and they let them in specifically due to being poor. Right, but whether it's based on race or income, you still have to meet minimum academic requirements, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Why is Todd Starnes discussing race on Fox News? A man that isn't qualified to discuss what cereal is the best to eat is trying to discuss grown up stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Right, but whether it's based on race or income, you still have to meet minimum academic requirements, right? Most colleges don't have minimum academic requirements AFAIK. They accept or reject people 100% at their own discretion, that's why the essays/non-academic parts of the application exist. From what I understand the legal basis of opposition to AA mostly relies on a twisting of the Civil Rights Act to say that AA is (reverse) discrimination and thus illegal under the 1964 Act. Which I guess is technically true but clearly against the spirit of the law. Most of the time conservatives are opposed to the CRA because it infringes the freedom of speech, but if you want to use the freedom of speech to help minorities then gently caress you. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Why is Todd Starnes discussing race on Fox News? They had Mark Fuhrman on the other day discussing the Brown shooting. I'm starting to think it's a game they play trying to find the most inappropriate guests possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:They had Mark Fuhrman on the other day discussing the Brown shooting. I'm starting to think it's a game they play trying to find the most inappropriate guests possible. "Joining me now on the great, great American panel to discuss gay rights is Tony Perkins...Tony, how you doing?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Most colleges don't have minimum academic requirements AFAIK. They accept or reject people 100% at their own discretion, that's why the essays/non-academic parts of the application exist. You need a high school degree (or are on track to get it/an equivalent) but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Apparently this is old but I'd never seen it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:It's extra silly, because Elyria is not some remote backwater. It's thirty minutes from Cleveland proper, ten minutes from the wealthiest western suburbs, and ten to fifteen minutes from various other populous suburban areas. It's also about twenty minutes from Lakewood, which is, like, totally gay. Uh, here's a few things to keep in mind when you're trying to lump Elyria in with Cleveland suburbs. - They have no industry at this point because steel has been gone for years and nothing filled the vacuum. - They're not strictly a suburb. Half of Elyria is glorified farmland. The other half is basically slums/ghettos. - The parts of Elyria that have money all send their kids to Open Door, Elyria Catholic, or Lake Ridge (or St. Eds/Ignatius in a handful of cases) because Elyria schools are the second worst schools in the county behind only Lorain (which is like, almost Cleveland levels of bad). - They basically elect democrats to try to fix their schools and economy, then never pass ballot issues or raise taxes because there's only a handful of people to squeeze whereas the rest don't have anything left to give. They're not a remote backwater by any means, but they're economically in a pretty similar place. And that lends itself very well to the sort of argument the GOP makes (BIG GUBMINT WANTS TO TAX YOU AND REGULATE YOUR LIVES) which traditionally appeals to that type of area (I.E. gentrified as gently caress with majority poverty and a handful of elites). The only way you can save an area like that financially would be with a local wealth tax, which, considering this is D&D, I shouldn't have to explain why that's never passing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:That's the problem. We've been hearing so much bullshit about persecuation of Christians in America and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE WILD that 1) people who would normally not go for that poo poo end up eventually succumbing to some anecdote or another and 2) those who do normally go for that poo poo hold up one particularly believable or legitimate example as being proof that they were RIGHT ALL ALONG Crossposting this from the A.C.E. thread because it is relevant. quote:There is a tremendous amount of overlap between the Are Country, God, Guns and Guts, and homeschooling/fundamentalist types. My Cult was far from the only one that felt it was already under active persecution from the Government. Government agencies were literally viewed as arms of Satan's influence on the Earth. Government agents were literally demon possessed servants of Satan (even though they didn't know it) and their attempts to inspect these schools were a part of Satan's never ending attempts to crush "True Christians".
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Crossposting this from the A.C.E. thread because it is relevant. For people who apparently expect to be persecuted they sure do sound whiny and surprised about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:For people who apparently expect to be persecuted they sure do sound whiny and surprised about it. One goon posted that he'd been sent to a camp that simulated a post-apocalyptic, anti-Christian future that they were expected to learn how to live in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:It's the same in Japan, too. They've been in more than 20 years of recession, and they're pointing fingers at millenials there, calling them "freeters", which is a derogatory term meaning someone who doesn't have loyalty to a company and who jumps around jobs to (or who don't have jobs) and are therefore "free". Freeter is not primarily used as a derogatory term, and that's not the etymology. It comes from a portmanteau of "freelance" and "arbeiter," which is German for "worker." "Arbeit" is used as a loan word in Japanese to mean "part-time job." So a freeter is a freelance part-time worker that's similar in some ways to a "day laborer" in the US, but without the connotation of construction. They do not have stable employment, but manage to make enough to live on by continuing to live with their parents and taking very short term menial jobs when they can get them. The reason it even exists as a term is because the Japanese didn't really have a short-hand term for people who are not necessarily NEET's, but also not in any kind of long term job. It was created simply for it's usefulness as a description, and not as a way to demonize anybody. I also haven't seen a lot of stuff in Japanese media making GBS threads on young people. So you're going to have to link me some sources before I take your point of view here seriously. Everything you posted in your second paragraph are things that show up all the time in Japanese media as criticisms of the structure of the Japanese economy. The situation with demonizing recent college graduates as lazy is really not the same as the US at all. There is a paternalistic view of industry in Japan, and them not hiring as many people is broadly seen as a failure of the companies by the general public due to the tradition of lifetime employment that used to exist. As an example, in recent years there have been many stories during the hiring season in March and April about college graduates unable to find jobs. Almost all of these stories are approached from the perspective of the companies not providing the jobs as opposed to the perspective of the graduates not being able get jobs like it is in the US. Due to the shrinking population in Japan, young people are not often used as a scapegoat for problems. They just don't make up enough of the economy to be blamed for structural problems. The low birthrate is often blamed for things like a lack of demand in the Japanese economy, but not the young people themselves aren't usually the target. ErIog fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Most colleges don't have minimum academic requirements AFAIK. They accept or reject people 100% at their own discretion, that's why the essays/non-academic parts of the application exist. Okay now I'm curious, how is AA supposed to work exactly?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:One goon posted that he'd been sent to a camp that simulated a post-apocalyptic, anti-Christian future that they were expected to learn how to live in. Where do I sign up to be a monster in that larp?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Okay now I'm curious, how is AA supposed to work exactly? There isn't actually a standardized program, basically "Affirmative Action" w/r/t college education refers to any time a university, public or private, selects one applicant over another because of race. Some institutions had explicit racial quotas, which was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in 1978 under the 14th Amendment (for public universities) and the Civil Rights Act (for private). Universities are allowed (for the time being at least) to consider race, but not to have racial quotas. Republicans want to ban even considering race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:One goon posted that he'd been sent to a camp that simulated a post-apocalyptic, anti-Christian future that they were expected to learn how to live in. Do you have a link to this post that sounds like a hell of a trip? Pharmaskittle posted:Where do I sign up to be a monster in that larp? Also this
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:One goon posted that he'd been sent to a camp that simulated a post-apocalyptic, anti-Christian future that they were expected to learn how to live in. My old high school did a "terrorist attack" scenario as part of a lockdown drill a few years after I graduated. Only, since they wanted it to be realistic, they decided that the only type of terrorist group that would make sense to seize a school in America was a right wing religious group that also was heavily into guns and anti-abortion. This ended up getting out to the fox-news-o-sphere and there was much shrieking about how mean the school district was to them. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Goddamn  quote:Come join 13-year-old Brenna Strong along with her mom, Bea, and her dad, Richard, as they spend a typical Saturday running errands and having fun together. What's not so typical is that Brenna's parents lawfully open carry handguns for self-defense. The Strongs join a growing number of families that are standing up for their 2nd Amendment rights by open carrying and bringing gun ownership out of the closet and into the mainstream. If you open carry and have a difficult time explaining why to your family and friends, or if you want to learn about the open carry of a handgun, or if you've wondered if open carry is right for you, then this book is what you need. My Parents Open Carry was written in the hope of providing a basic overview of the right to keep and bear arms as well as the growing practice of the open carry of a handgun. We fear our children are being raised with a biased view of our constitution and especially in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Before writing this, we looked for pro-gun children's books and couldn't find any. Our goal was to provide a wholesome family book that reflects the views of the majority of the American people, i.e., that self-defense is a basic natural right and that firearms provide the most efficient means for that defense. We truly hope you will enjoy this book and read and discuss it with your children over and over again. As you read this book, you will learn about the growing practice of open carry, the 2nd Amendment, and the right and responsibility of self-defense. Home School Teachers: This book is an excellent text to use as a starting point on the discussion of the 2nd Amendment. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...RXSBASFFH5FZYPT
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Blue-eyed blond-haired Aryan mutants
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
drat, that's a hard looking 13
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Really? B Strong & Dick Strong?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Yeah Wonkette has been making fun of those books for a while now. The art is so bad. Whiteycar posted:Really? B Strong & Dick Strong? Bit on the nose, that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
My favorite part: Before writing this, we looked for pro-gun children's books and couldn't find any.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
The art is exactly as brain-damaged looking as the whole idea of open carry itself is. The reviews are great though. One-star amazon gem posted:This occasionally droll spoof of the classic 1970s swingers' guidebook "My Parents Open Relationship" nonetheless "misses its mark" in terms of conveying the ironic subtext clearly intended in its "Second Amendment Does Dallas" construct. Sure, the father's name gets an obvious nod to the sexually perverse counterculture celebrated in Jeffs' opus, but he failed to take advantage of the more subtle double entendres rife within the subject matter especially when Brenna marvels at her daddy's gun. In terms of satirical hyperbole of the Swiftian ilk there are indeed better reads out there that will literally "castle doctrine" all over your face. One-star amazon champ posted:I have always been taught to never judge a book by its cover, but in this case, I have no choice. One-star amazon novelist posted:lame. I thought: how can a book go wrong with a protagonist named Dick Strong? but there is little character development despite the author's claim in his own description of the book that this will be about coming "out of the closet." I did appreciate the attention to adolescent angst as Breanna gets a little carried away, as teenage girls will do, and brings her loaded gun to school in a backpack when she isn't accepted onto the cheerleading team (forgetting everything her parents told her about OPEN carry) ... the revenge chapter is the only action in this book and it won't carry your attention through the other 23 pages. But the entire plot is depressingly familiar, culminating with the family holing up in their bunker at the appointed apocalypse date never to be seen again. No explanation of how dad lost his right arm in a gun cleaning accident and had that nifty prosthetic gun grafted on (great way to get around gun bans in closed-minded states - now THAT might have been useful advice). As you can guess by the cover illustration, it's obviously a socialist plot to discredit the God-loving, AK-47-wielding citizen militia movement in 'murica. Hazo posted:Blue-eyed blond-haired Aryan mutants 
Spacedad fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Okay now I'm curious, how is AA supposed to work exactly? How some institutions react to AA ends up being quotas, race-based initiatives, and so on. BUT, the most basic AA policy is that you have to be open (and available) to applicants of all races. You have to take "affirmative action" to ensure that your advertising, hiring, supervising (and all other policies) are equally accessible by ALL 'protected classes'. For example, in the past colleges and businesses would advertise positions only through "acceptable" venues (ie. "white" newspapers). This effectively hid their positions from minorities; there's no need make tough decisions if minorities don't even apply. AA didn't require advertising a position in multiple venues, but one way to satisfy AA requirements was to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States quote:Some policies adopted as affirmative action, such as racial quotas or gender quotas for collegiate admission, have been criticized as a form of reverse discrimination, and such implementation of affirmative action has been ruled unconstitutional by the majority opinion of Gratz v. Bollinger. Affirmative action as a practice was upheld by the court's decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. quote:FDR’s New Deal programs often contained equal opportunity clauses stating “no discrimination shall be made on account of race, color or creed”, but the true forerunner to affirmative action was the Interior Secretary of the time, Harold L. Ickes. Ickes prohibited discrimination in hiring for Public Works Administration funded projects and oversaw not only the institution of a quota system, where contractors were required to employ a fixed percentage of Black workers, by Robert C. Weaver and Clark Foreman, but also the equal pay of women proposed by Harry Hopkins. FDR’s largest contribution to affirmative action, however, lay in his Executive Order 8802 which prohibited discrimination in the defense industry or government. The executive order promoted the idea that if taxpayer funds were accepted through a government contract, then all taxpayers should have an equal opportunity to work through the contractor. To enforce this idea, Roosevelt created the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) with the power to investigate hiring practices by government contractors. This is the key "affirmative action" definition, from Kennedy: quote:Shortly after taking office, Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925 in March 1961, requiring government contractors to “consider and recommend additional affirmative steps which should be taken by executive departments and agencies to realize more fully the national policy of nondiscrimination…. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin”. Affirmative Action is basically: "show your work" regarding how an institution deals with racism. AA doesn't dictate how, but does require some plan, action, or blanket policy regarding diversity. So while some companies resorted to "diversity hires" (who weren't at all qualified, but satisfied a quota or appearance of diversity), others did one better and created policies that actively sought out highly qualified minorities as a matter of best practice. anonumos fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
I think how universities implement affirmative action varies widely, but my impression is that it was something like this: University admissions usually rank applicants based on a composite of objective criteria (standardized test scores, GPA) and subjective criteria (extracurricular activities and sports, background of the applicant etc.). Often the subjective elements will be "scored" also and incorporated into a numerical component of the applicant's total score or ranking, like someone who was an Olympic medalist would get the highest possible scores for that part of the application, whereas someone who merely was on their school sports team with no particular distinction might get an average or lower score for that element of the applicant scoring. With AA, being a member of an underrepresented minority would add points to your score. So a black or Hispanic applicant who was otherwise identical to a white applicant in every way, GPA and test scores, extracurriculars etc., would rank ahead of the white applicant and get in ahead of them in a close situation. Now if the system gave a lot of points for being an underrepresented minority then there might be a significant disparity in scores or grades. The funny thing is, schools give huge weighting to stuff like being a "legacy" (child of an alumnus), presumably because the family is much more likely to donate money to the school. I went to a really competitive university and was told while I was there that "legacy" applicants had literally twice the odds of admission of nonlegacy applicants with similar stats. This has nothing to do whatsoever with merit, unlike sports/ECs, although it makes a kind of financial sense for the school, but you never hear conservatives bashing legacy admissions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
Hazo posted:White suburban people freaking out about not being able to get a lovely unhealthy pink cookie for school lunch is the most Ohio thing ever. My father is a retired Elyria math teacher. It's a terrible city and school system that doesn't deserve a pink cookie that I've never even heard of before this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:My favorite part: I wonder why that is 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:I wonder why that is Wasn't there a King of the Hill episode where Dale Gribble did exactly this and made a cartoon gun character or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Probably, King Of The Hill was good about that kind of stuff. Although nowadays Dale would be considered more mainstream, given the current state of the conspiracy crowd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Probably, King Of The Hill was good about that kind of stuff. Although nowadays Dale would be considered more mainstream, given the current state of the conspiracy crowd. Probably not, since he didn't mind gay people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Probably not, since he didn't mind gay people. Nice. I found it. It was about a bullet. A bullet that was lost. http://www.tv.com/shows/king-of-the-hill/manger-baby-einstein-1264912/
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Probably not, since he didn't mind gay people. Yet he still lost the gay vote and the black vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:48 |
|
|
anonumos posted:How some institutions react to AA ends up being quotas, race-based initiatives, and so on. Zwabu posted:I think how universities implement affirmative action varies widely, but my impression is that it was something like this: Both are wrong, as quotas and set points have long been considered illegal. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke prohibited quotas, and Gratz v. Bollinger prohibited giving a set number of points by race. Fisher v. University of Texas has also ruled that AA can only take place if the institution can show that they've tried race neutral ways of increasing diversity first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 17:48
|
|
