Yeah, it’s a great first few steps. Really hoping LibDem becomes the official opposition and it’s just two Left™ parties driving each other leftward.
Current Labour concerns me with how it’s moved rightwards, but Daddy Starmer has my vote regardless
Thank you my dude 🙏
Totally, the other thing both of your examples did well is actually integrate the “Woke™” elements into their world in a natural and believable way. None of it unearthed established canon or went out of its way to score rainbow capitalist diversity points
I feel like a lot of “woke” shows are not great, but they get a cult of defenders and haters boosting it’s popularity because of some perceived culture war. When it’s really just execs trying to make their milk toast milquetoast slop shamelessly appeal to a wider audience.
No one complains about Spiderverse (after it came out) because it was good
The original 20 minute video in the article makes it clear he’s talking about job roles, and mentions writers a few times (admittedly not close enough to draw an 100% certain link). I don’t think it’s enough to discredit this just based on the assumption that he’s talking about actors or that there isn’t enough context. Obviously it’s vague enough that we can’t draw any solid conclusions, so I agree with you there.
The main reason I think this is bullshit is that the guy’s testimony isn’t credible for two main reasons:
These two points, regardless of how true his story is, give him an ulterior motive for embellishing the story and exaggerating facts, which ultimately means we can’t trust this.
I’d like to see a full investigation, as with any accusation of discrimination. But we all know that when nothing turns up, it wouldn’t shut the right wingers up
only 2tb? that’s the size of my cache drives
This is also a lot more achievable than total healthcare reform. Both are achievable for sure, but just forcing landlords to install and maintain aircon is easier
I’m a strong atheist, but you’re kinda pick and choosing the facts. Skepticism isn’t about replacing one dogma with another.
China had a whole thing with persecuting those with religious beliefs. It’s certainly the minority, but state enforced atheism has created great horrors. Anything can be warped and disfigured into a horrific belief system used to justify anything.
Those who are religious should be held to the same level of scientific scrutiny as everyone else. There’s no evidence to show that Andrew Wakefield was Christian, and look at the shit show that caused
Being charitable, he’s saying that he’s going to massively help cooperations, and that any exec should do the morally bankrupt thing and vote for him because he (thinks) that he’ll make line go up much more than Biden.
Although the more I think about it, it’s hard not to see it as a not so subtle call for ideological purity. It’s certainly going to rally some people
I’m the healer and my partner is a dps. Healers and Tanks seem so criminally underplayed that I alone massively skew the queue times.
Healer and Tank combo must be borderline instant
Have you seen Alex Jones? You are on Lemmy, so you’re going to find a lot more demonisation of the right on here, than say Truth Social. Go over there and you’ll find plenty of posts about lefties eating babies and Biden draining the blood of the young to sustain his life
quality of life increases overall fertility rates decrease
Look at Elon Musk, Boris Johnson, or a whole host of incredibly wealthy people with stupid amounts of children. Quality of life increase is also linked to higher economic power. This is linked to higher human capital investments, meaning that it’s now disproportionately more expensive to raise a child to be successful in the new economy with the higher quality of life. Quality of life increase generally correlates to life being disproportionately more expensive.
Solve the cost of raising children and you solve fertility rates
Lemmy in particular seems to have a high percentage of reasonable people. As in people who can be reasoned with, but might just be stuck in a ideological rabbit hole. I’ve found that by dropping hostility and acknowledging common ground I can quickly turn an argument into a productive discussion, where both sides learn something. This happens with people who are on the left or right of myself. So it’d be shame to overly ban one side and lose that.
It equally must suck for the mods, because I’ve seen some very very vitriolic comments here, again, on both sides. Removing these comments helps cool people’s heads, but unequal enforcement may be an issue. I’m also generally against censorship, I just absolutely hate the platform when some stupid toxic divisive topic/meme gets posted everywhere for like a month. I really don’t know where I stand on removing comments or banning people, seems like a fine line to walk
Thank you for the calmer reply, I’ve upvoted you, and appreciate your response. I’m 100% with you on improving access to education, and the issues women and minorities face in university courses. My end goal is the same as yours, I want to see equality in the workplace and elsewhere, I’m just trying to address what I think are legitimate concerns that the previous commentator raised.
I get that senior hiring is a thing, the problem is that as you’ve mentioned, historical discrimination has made it very difficult for women and minorities to get the appropriate credentials and skills required to adequately perform in senior roles. Not saying they’re incapable, of course not, just that this is an issue we’re still suffering from.
My worry is that this historical discrimination will force companies to over hire women and minorities in starting roles, and be unable to hire women in senior roles, if we pursue short term demographic equality. This leaves young men, particularly poor young men, at a disadvantage, and does nothing to fix the historical oppression women have suffered from.
I chose law in particular, because it’s fairly even in graduates today, even in women’s favour, and there’s way more graduates than jobs, which means that if we wanted immediate demographic equality the industry as a whole could experience the same issue as the hypothetical company above, but obviously not as dramatic. Which is why I take issue with the short term goal being equal demographics. The short term goal should be equal hiring, with the long term goal being equal demographics as the older generations filter out.
In many metro areas young women already earn more than young men.
It’s not fair that women and minorities have been held back, but I’m worried that going too hard too fast is going to cause more long term problems
Firstly, I’m a different person. I’m just interested on what your solution is. No need to be so hostile. I’ve likely just misunderstood you.
My critique is specifically on the bit I quoted. You need to divide it by generation. The hiring, especially for starting roles, is heavily biased towards the young. These people are just coming out of college.
Giving your example of 50% women in the population, and a law firm is 100 people, 90 of which are men. That firm now needs to hire 90 women and 10 men to reach that 50% goal. But now you’ve also influxed a tonne of women into that workforce, meaning now you’ll need to hire disproportionately more men next generation after the original 90 men have retired. It creates a cycle of discrimination. Obviously that’s oversimplified, and there’s additional factors you could add to the example e.g. staff turnover.
I don’t disagree with setting hiring goals 50/50 men/women if that’s what your advocating for? It doesn’t immediately change workplace demographics, but it should even out over time. And there are still issues stemming from the amount of male vs female degree holders in certain subjects that are heavily gender biased, like engineering, vetinary practice, and IT.
I’m also totally for raising funding for public services and education to ensure everyone gets the best start on life they can. No disagreement there. It’d be ideal if we could encourage young men/women to more evenly participate in different subjects.
Again I’m sorry if I misunderstood your point, it wasn’t clear to me
when the imbalance is so bad, there is a point where, on a large sale, you need to hire a higher number of women / Black people / handicapped people to catch up, because you’ve shut them down the whole time; and that basically makes it your own fault if you think they’re less competent than educated competent men, because they didn’t get the opportunity, because they didn’t get the training, because… they didn’t get the opportunity.
Aren’t you also talking about diversity hires? I’m assuming you think there’s an imbalance that needs fixing, and your way of fixing it seems to be to hire minorities at a much greater proportion than how they’re represented in the population? Shouldn’t your solution be more class based?
Also want to point out, most of that is container, not spent fuel. The safety standards are so ridiculously high that they basically guarantee zero risk.
More people (per plant) are exposed to elevated levels of radiation due to coal power, and that’s not even including the health risk of all the other shit they release
Using Copilot as a copilot, like generating boilerplate and then code reviewing it is still “babysitting” it. It’s still significantly less effort than just doing it yourself though
Fair, I can respect that extremely specific subset of people that don’t match the wider trend
Totally, the problem is he should be in a home, and a fresh strapping young lad/lass under the age of 70 (lmao) should be doing these debates instead.
Trump needs to be defeated at all costs, I’m just massively disappointed that this is the guy the democrats chose