Random Thoughts.....What Are You Thinking?

Oh and as an aside, these woke middle / upper class class white people who constantly virtue signal about other groups needing more representation in whatever A) never give up their high paying job, that lets them live in a .001% safest / nicest part of the country to someone less fortunate than them, and instead just keep on virtue signalling while keeping that job and all the luxuries and B) will always make sure they get their kids (if they have them) into high paying jobs / high class universities too instead of helping someone "less fortunate".

It's easy to virtue signal online and be the "best person in the room" when you're pulling in 100-200k a year, working from home in your plush house in a gated community with birdies singing in your massive garden.

Try being poor, living pay cheque to pay cheque and see how that works out for you.

What do you mean exactly? Why does being in middle class takes away that person's right to fight for equality?

Middle class people are already paying 25%-40% income tax in Social democracy countries. Those money already goes to welfare for poor people. So they are already "helping the poor" with their income by paying insane tax rate to begin with.


Afaik middle class people are generally less likely to support left wing social democracy because they are the groups that's losing the most money for poor people.

I know a lot of middle class to upper middle class people irl, literally none of them are left leaning when it comes to wealth distribution. What do you mean by middle class = woke lol. Sounds like you are just hating on another group AGAIN.

This is a faulty assumption and premise and requires a more nuanced understanding. A majority race patriarchal society is the reason a random prestigious or STEM field might have a majority race male population of practitioners; that group of people has been traditionally given the most opportunities and beneficial traits that encourage or accentuate that path.

For example a random 5 year old girl might start getting bullied for wanting to play with a science kit instead of a dollie, or a teacher/parent/society focuses far less energy on helping the girls in her class/family to learn STEM focused skills, and instead push them towards valuing nurturing traits as the currency that matters for their lives repeatedly as they get older so they miss out on opportunities their whole lives to pursue the same goals and value the same drive towards those fields. My wife has a degree in electrical engineering and she was constantly bullied by all the males in her college classes and treated like she didnt belong or was inferior etc, and a minority individual or a woman might face a far harder time and with far less opportunities in the same field from day 1. (just like you would see Male Nurses in the last 50 years facing the same adversity and dismissive behavior when trying to excel in their field as a minority or woman would face in some fields etc)

The problem isn't as simple as that sentiment of "oh those minorities just don't care and pursue the field, that's why it's 98% white guys" meanwhile the field has slowly become closer to 80% white guys but the company might have a bias towards not giving anyone outside that metric a genuine chance at the role. This is where legislation comes in and a country's respective government might force a company to pull their applicants from the 100% pool, to make sure all possible best candidates are considered and genuine evidence to this end is apparent in the hiring process, not bias.

the curve in that simulation would be closer to a normal curve pulling from 100% of the population than if it had pulled from just the 60% white male population, and as such it would be a more accurate assessment. Of course there would be outliers regardless but this was about finding the best candidate and preventing bias from controlling the process.

This is the same faulty sentiment as above because the merit differences you mention can be attributed to our societies and the way we treat all our people, not their actual race or the implication that we might be born with more or less intelligence based on such.

A cultures majority male population in a societal such as these will always have more opportunities and be far more rewarded and encouraged to succeed at these fields, with their encouraged traits seen as far more valuable in those fields, and it's up to us to make sure we don't let that bias amplify that against everyone else from succeeding there as well. It will absolutely be much harder to gain the same success if one is outside that majority which has the focus for sure, that's why we have legislation and efforts to overcome that faced bias.



tl;dr
Men and women are not the same for sure, and both have drastically different evolved innate strengths and weaknesses from birth even before any of our societies comes into play. It boils down just to basic inclusion; We need a focus on allowing all groups opportunities at the same role so we don't just increasingly exclude people from their opportunities in life because they aren't in a socially acceptable majority for that role.

These people get up the ladder then kick it away for everyone else that is a threat to them, they then suggest the hiring of people who they know are incompetent because a) it has no effect on them now and b) they are more likely to be promoted with higher wages if everyone else around them is incompetent diversity hires.

Woke people are the top .01% of society usually (or the kids of said people), that live in luxury and constantly brow beating every other white person that lives in or close to the poverty line.

They are self serving and use minorities as a shield to pretend they are good people, when they are anything but good because they never help the vast majority of poor people in their countries (in regards their voting demands of politicians that pander to them) and quite the opposite make poor peoples lives worse with their luxury beliefs.

These stupid people then are surprised when all the poor people in their country vote for some boogie man, and think the reason isn't that they are pompous a**holes making everyone else's lives worse (muh immigrants welcome, muh abolish the police, muh diversity hiring, muh green save the planet and ban cars, muh ban meat and eat carrots, muh abolish self protection rights) but it must be because people got to say stuff on social media in relative freedom so we have to shut that down and moderate harder to make sure it doesn't happen again (it will).

The internet didn't get boogie man elected, middle class white people did by driving the poor masses into his arms with their luxury belief demands that make everyone's life harder but theirs.

So, you're advocating that you should hire a worse person for the job, because it's unfair to those who were not born on the correct path to become best for the job? Am I misunderstanding something here? If that's the case, could you indulge me and answer a hypothetical question?

Hypothetical: All hiring is done through a solely merit based system, where tasks are completed autonomously and their results are evaluated. For the sake of argument, this system has been secured to the extent that cheating is impossible and the performance is a direct correlary to on-the-job performance. The hiring manager is not able to see any personally identifying information at any point until the candidate is selected. If this situation favors a certain group, is there a reason to change it?

In other words, if you could not use an argument that amounts to 'the hiring manager is biased', is it fair to hire in a way that is racially unequitable but produces the best candidates?

A reason yes, a good reason, no

Theres just too many stupid people with too many stupid ideas/opinions, we need tide pods v2 but no one to tell them not to eat them.

We're at this point in history where a big paradigm shift is unfolding but it probably won't happen until were all dead. Speed of molasses.

It really feels like the entire thing is a strawman. If you have more white men than other races, relative to the amount of applicants, you're a big bad racist and the only reason for that outcome is because you're preferring white men.

But, the quantity of applicants (or graduates) is not a fair indicator of the quantity of quality applicants or graduates. The variability hypothesis is a good example of how this could play out. Because[under this hypothesis] men have a higher degree of variability, any cutoff chosen more than a certain deviation from the mean will have drastically more men than women. So, if the cutoff for the qualifications is closer to the mean than the cutoff for the job, you'll have more men worth hiring than women worth hiring relative to the amount of applicants.

This is why everyone needs to be evaluated individually, and race/gender shouldn't be a factor in the decision at all.

So Elon Musk is woke?(Despite he made it clear to support Trump)


Warren Buffett is woke? Jensen Huang is woke?

You aren't making any sense atm.


This is a silly claim that makes zero sense. If "diversity hire" is a real thing it threatens successfully people's job market. Since some of these jobs are going to different groups now.

In other words, if you have a well paid job you wouldn't want this job is given by more competitors in the market.

You need to stop making ***up.

It's racist because the non-whites lost the birth lottery and never got the chance to be the most qualified candidate

Never had a chance.

Birth lottery is the problem. So many losers. The game is rigged from day zero. Merits mean nothing compared to zip code and who daddy knows.

(It's not color, it's class, it's just who is the color majority of said classes)

If a society is ~60% white, and the field in question is on average ~85% white, your example situation means they will be hiring purely on merit and the hypothetical hiring will be ~85% white and in keeping with the field’s current population, and could be called unbiased without generating any additional bias etc.

And the company has fulfilled their obligation and it’s up to the society to help the field move closer to the ~60% for the population etc. but if the company is consistently hiring 98% whites for that role? It shows they are not hiring on merit and the hiring process is likely biased and needs auditing.

You completely ignored the question. Is it impossible, in your mind, for there to be greater merit in one race than another within a single candidate pool? This is completely contrary to probability, even if you assume all merit is randomly distributed in a race/gender-blind manner.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read/-country-fire-new-poll-finds-america-polarized-culture-race-woke-rcna81592




tl;Dr: majority of the people who believe the society is unfair are the minority themselves. Why do you keep saying wokes are all rich white middle class? It makes zero sense..

Cool you can take a sneak peak at 1999 content, ingame. Didn't realise yesterday. Pretty cool.

Majority of woke people are minorities. Majority of woke white people are upper middle class or higher. The reasoning is simple: If you're still struggling to survive yourself, you have less leftover energy to get involved with perceived social issues and injustices for your own self-gratification.

You need to look at the whole issue from a higher perspective.


If a country has a group of people who represents 20% of the total population, and this group has significantly lower income than another group. Then just this fact existed will create huge social conflict in the society.

Ideally you want income gaps between different demographics being relatively equal to avoid social conflicts.

This applies to any country and any demographics. Income gaps between different demographics is just not a good thing in terms of stability.

This is a reasonable and pragmatic argument, just like the prior argument you posed to me in regards to diversity of thought between people of different backgrounds. I don't disagree with either of them.

But, the argument being made in this thread is that merit is evenly distributed between all races and thus merit-based hiring would result in equal hiring of each race. I do not believe that to be true, or supported, and it seems to be more of a liberal ideal.

Maybe it falls under the desire to avoid social conflicts; accepting that differences between races exist may stoke fires of discontent.

This is a better way to phrase the whole situation lol. Idk if majority of white woke are middle class but saying most woke aren't minority nor young students just felt wrong.... they are the one who benefits the most from woke culture.

It doesn't matter how many minorities believe in a system that benefits them financially (this is a no brainer), all that matters is how many upper middle class and rich people care about it. Cause that's who the politicians pander to. We don't live in a democracy, we live in countries where a certain group gets all their desires listened to and f everyone else, and that group is class and not race.

This is why almost all western nations positions on anything is woke bs that makes no actual common sense and destroys productivity and wealth, and almost all positions of none white nations isn't.

This is end of empire stuff in action.

My post is focusing on inclusion, so no candidate is left behind based on their race or gender etc.

The theoretical goal was hiring the best possible candidate for a job, and not letting any bias change that. Letting the applicants performance in their application testing be the factor to hiring, not their race.

So the pool of successful candidates accurately represents the population of people currently working in that field.

Most everybody is woke 2/3 of the time.

The other 1/3 they are asleep.

None-white nations have "woke" as well......wtf are you talking about man....

Go google 4b movement in south Korea. It's a perfectly normal thing minorities fight for their benefit in democracy.



If politicians listen to certain group but not your group, then you either aren't loud enough(with vote, not internet noise) or aren't big enough as a group.


If politicians listen to certain group of people and they are in the minority, then maybe their ideology represents what majority of people want. Or the opposite side doesn't vote.

It's dumb as *** to complain about it on the internet instead of taking real actions. Go complain on the streets, then politicians will listen. If you aren't willing to do that why would they listen to you?

Back in the day when we didn't have democracy, anti-government groups did terrorist attacks to accomplish what they want politically. By comparison you are in a way better position in a democracy country and your internet rant feels weak. Not saying you should resort to terrorist attacks too, but have you even try to go on the streets instead of complaining at home?

I am asleep half the time, lazy ftw!

Oh, the destiny…

The same institution that lost my money because didnt give me the discount and treated me poorly when i asked for support, now had an ad shown in my Youtube.

Im not sure how the algorithm understood i was inclined to look for corses, but it screwed greatly by suggesting me the very same company i hate

Why are you guys throwing numbers on me?

Do i look like a calculator?

Also just FYI, afaik UK (and Canada too) are some of the most poor people friendly country in the world. The income tax rate is insanely high, the health care is public funded. There are pension/welfare system paid by middle classes's tax money.

As a middle class it is actually not all that beneficial to live in high tax rate countries like this, the money loss from tax is too huge since it's a percentage cut. This system benefits poor people more. I don't understand the hate.

If you still aren't happy about middle class having too much "benefit" in a high tax rate country, then you will never be happy anywhere in the world. I live in a low tax rate country and I pretty much have to pay my pension and retirement fee out of my pocket. By comparison those social democracy countries already took a lot of money from middle classes and give them to the poor. To me it feels like complaining for the sake of doing so.

We've officially gone from zero to negative one

If you know you know

And if you dont know, you probably dont know

This is a broad strokes take that fails to give agency to the races and cultures that aren't the majority, and how they interplay alongside and against the perceived majority.

It is a take that assumes that these races/sexes want the same things and have the same ideals. And that there are no deep seated cultural differences about what is, in itself, considered prestigious. (And also that they should want the same things, as if there is only one path that leads to success in life)

For example, a young black girl might grow up with a passion for the sciences, but be surrounded by people of her same race who tell her it will make her more like whites/men if she embraces that all of the way, and so her own caretakers will push her away from STEM and towards whatever is considered "black woman coded."

From the other end, those in that field may put pressure on her to succeed in the field she loves in spite of that, which in a way, is the disavowment of that culture and its perspective.

The companies hire based on merit first, and then they hire based on quotas given to them by the race based organizations like the NAACP(or whatever organization has the power to leverage this type of stuff these days) that go in and try to make sure they're not just hiring one race, even though race should be irrelevant to a job or task.

The reality of the situation is that DEI and other practices like it are symptomatic treatment. They aren't treating the root cause of why there is disparity between races/sexes in these fields. And they really can't treat those causes, because they come from longstanding socio-familial relationships which create the foundations for how people see and conduct themselves from the time they are children until they are adults.

And on top of that, the DEI practices don't actually seek justice. They merely seek an end to disparity, and that in and of itself is not justice. It is just changing who will be treated unfairly tomorrow.

______

It might help you to think about it like this: What if we could live up to the ideal that you propose. What if we did get the hiring % to exactly match the racial breakdown % of the population? What then happens in the next round of hiring when someone leaves the company? Would you not then have to only hire from the pool of the person who left's race? How does that help the company?

All that would lead to is potential hires having to obsess over and find out the race breakdown of each company they apply to, and it would limit potential for everyone.

On another note I got to see what this unit could do in a 0% growths playthrough of Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance.



He's the only unit with innate Resolve, and so you can make him do absurd things by giving him boosters and the skills Miracle and Vantage.

Apparently he can take on like half of the Chapter 26 map, "Clash!" by himself in this manner.

Just needs a Brave Weapon or two and to be in Resolve range.