User Profile

Forum Activity by Infinitus Corsair

Infinitus Corsair
Moses
Moses
WrecklooseThe Sixers are the most fun team in the league. Knicks are second.

It's Houston #1 for me.

Rockets have 90 points at half.

What a bunch of baloney. How is Clint Capela supposed to get minutes when the Suns run themselves out of the game in the first quarter?

Moses, my concerns were unfounded--Capela has secured a double-double.
Nov 17, 2017 5:23 AM
Moses
Moses
WrecklooseThe Sixers are the most fun team in the league. Knicks are second.

It's Houston #1 for me.

Rockets have 90 points at half.

What a bunch of baloney. How is Clint Capela supposed to get minutes when the Suns run themselves out of the game in the first quarter?
Nov 17, 2017 4:56 AM
Little AshGranted, to me, the picture looks like he?s miming the groping, so the accusation of the forced kissing seems like the worst part of the accusation to me.

Even if the picture doesn't show him touching her (and it's hard to say), there's no telling if he did before or after. And the worst part is that, after seeing the picture, she couldn't know whether or not it was true.
Nov 17, 2017 3:13 AM
Meow
Infinitus Corsair
Meow
Esoteric AllusionI'm personally opposed to Moore facing expulsion in the Senate should he be elected. I don't think conduct that occurred before a person held elected office should result in their removal from office unless it was serious criminal misconduct or maleficence directly related to their election. Anything else sets a very bad precedent in my view. I'm in favor of Moore formally withdrawing his attempt to be elected because I think he would be doing the right thing by recognizing he is not an appropriate candidate for office. While this thinking doesn't play into my thoughts on Franken per se since voluntary resignation is different than expulsion, it also occurs to me that people can perfectly consistent in opposing the election of Moore and not wanting Franken to resign.

I'm ok with setting the bar at sexual misconduct and abuse of power, though.

I agree with EA, that's a pretty lawless view of democratic representation.

Representatives can be removed and not just through democratic means. Representatives can also be arbitrarily appointed, marginalized, or face consequences affecting their power outside of legal mechanisms or the ballot box via appointments to committees or other means. They can be removed, too. There's limits on what constituents can ask for when it comes to who represents them in the federal government.

Yes--they are limited by the actual laws governing eligibility. The reason for the rule EA cited about not using pre-election actions to justify removal is because doing otherwise converts the removal decision into a purely political act by having a different group of actors--the House or Senate--second guess the wisdom of the electorate. What could be more undemocratic than having the Senate, 99% of which is not from Alabama, override the legally-eligible choice of a majority of Alabamans.
Nov 17, 2017 3:06 AM
ZubenThere are a lot of pictures of me with my butt in the face of passed out friends (dudes) out in the world. Man, I can never run for office. Also, I remember watching and laughing along with like half a dozen other guys when one of us took his balls out and wiped it across the face of our passed out friend. There was a video of that, but I doubt it still exists. I get the sense whenever I post about this kind of stuff at this forum that I grew up in a much frat-ier culture than most people here. Going to boarding school didn't help either.

Certainly more than me. I often wonder about things like that and how I'd have reacted if people in my group were misbehaving. I was very socially awkward and struggled to fit in so I fear that I would have just laughed nervously and moved on.
Nov 17, 2017 3:00 AM
Infinitus Corsair
Meow
Esoteric AllusionI'm personally opposed to Moore facing expulsion in the Senate should he be elected. I don't think conduct that occurred before a person held elected office should result in their removal from office unless it was serious criminal misconduct or maleficence directly related to their election. Anything else sets a very bad precedent in my view. I'm in favor of Moore formally withdrawing his attempt to be elected because I think he would be doing the right thing by recognizing he is not an appropriate candidate for office. While this thinking doesn't play into my thoughts on Franken per se since voluntary resignation is different than expulsion, it also occurs to me that people can perfectly consistent in opposing the election of Moore and not wanting Franken to resign.

I'm ok with setting the bar at sexual misconduct and abuse of power, though.

I agree with EA, that's a pretty lawless view of democratic representation.

Of course, I think Franken's resignation is appropriate because his constituents did not have the opportunity to weigh his misconduct when electing him in the first place.
Nov 17, 2017 2:44 AM
Meow
Esoteric AllusionI'm personally opposed to Moore facing expulsion in the Senate should he be elected. I don't think conduct that occurred before a person held elected office should result in their removal from office unless it was serious criminal misconduct or maleficence directly related to their election. Anything else sets a very bad precedent in my view. I'm in favor of Moore formally withdrawing his attempt to be elected because I think he would be doing the right thing by recognizing he is not an appropriate candidate for office. While this thinking doesn't play into my thoughts on Franken per se since voluntary resignation is different than expulsion, it also occurs to me that people can perfectly consistent in opposing the election of Moore and not wanting Franken to resign.

I'm ok with setting the bar at sexual misconduct and abuse of power, though.

I agree with EA, that's a pretty lawless view of democratic representation.
Nov 17, 2017 2:43 AM
Does anybody remember laughter?
Nov 16, 2017 4:22 AM
Paris the Goat
Infinitus CorsairI don't have a team. If there's a team anyone would like to know about, let me know and I'll check 'em out and post my findings.

Aren't you in Tennessee? Not a Grizzlies fan?

Eh, they're Titans West. Ugly uniforms, boring style, dumb name. Plus Nashville and Memphis have a thing.
Nov 16, 2017 1:26 AM
I don't have a team. If there's a team anyone would like to know about, let me know and I'll check 'em out and post my findings.
Nov 16, 2017 1:19 AM
BigwigPS Smoke on the Water is a terrible song

What asshole upvoted this post?
Nov 15, 2017 5:29 AM
Detrimental
Infinitus Corsair
Detrimental
Infinitus Corsair
Detrimental
Infinitus Corsair
Detrimental
Janson Jinnistan
DetrimentalI really don't think you know how to read. I said "pursuing it" is a bad thing, not diversity itself.

Well let's not pursue it and see how much of this good diversity you end up with.

Why do you think women and minorities aren't up to the task of getting jobs without companies going out of their way to hire them?

Literally because of attitudes you're espousing in this thread.

If you look good on paper and did well in the interview a person is going to want to hire you. Sure you will have a harder time if you're a minority. But after awhile you'll get enough of said minorities in businesses and then they can hire people with a more objective eye (or maybe even more biased eye towards their own).?

Yes, generations of disadvantaged groups--just wait several generations for a few brave (and statistically lucky) representatives to gradually break down thousands of years of deeply-ingrained racism and sexism. Sure, you will miss out on opportunities that privileged groups take for granted and thus--collectively--enjoy a lower quality of life. But just knowing that your descendants will thrive will doubtless warm your heart.

The reason minority groups have a lower quality of life have more to do with governmental reasons like The War on Drugs and etc than the fact that companies aren't making a mission to hire them.

You've got the cart before the horse. Those governmental policies--like hiring practices that are driven by unexamined privilege and prejudice--are manifestations of the deeply-embedded prejudices that are the root cause of group-based disadvantage.

Sure but those two things are very diffferent. One a person is forced to follow and the other is up to a person's whims. If you take away the laws that are motivated by prejudice you make it so that certain minorities can thrive. If you leave those same policies intact, whether or not you forcible change those hiring practices or not you're still going to have a lot of the same problems.
One thing you can do to help minorities as a business is to fire people who are hiring non-minorities that are not as qualified over more qualified minorities I guess. But that's just good business you don't want someone hiring under qualified people no matter the reason. It hurts business.

We have failed you as a forum.
Nov 15, 2017 5:21 AM
Jean, I read your story. I can give you notes in chat sometime. Have you taken a writing class? You should take a writing class. I did one last year and had lots of fun.
Nov 15, 2017 5:14 AM
Detrimental
Infinitus Corsair
Detrimental
Infinitus Corsair
Detrimental
Janson Jinnistan
DetrimentalI really don't think you know how to read. I said "pursuing it" is a bad thing, not diversity itself.

Well let's not pursue it and see how much of this good diversity you end up with.

Why do you think women and minorities aren't up to the task of getting jobs without companies going out of their way to hire them?

Literally because of attitudes you're espousing in this thread.

If you look good on paper and did well in the interview a person is going to want to hire you. Sure you will have a harder time if you're a minority. But after awhile you'll get enough of said minorities in businesses and then they can hire people with a more objective eye (or maybe even more biased eye towards their own).?

Yes, generations of disadvantaged groups--just wait several generations for a few brave (and statistically lucky) representatives to gradually break down thousands of years of deeply-ingrained racism and sexism. Sure, you will miss out on opportunities that privileged groups take for granted and thus--collectively--enjoy a lower quality of life. But just knowing that your descendants will thrive will doubtless warm your heart.

The reason minority groups have a lower quality of life have more to do with governmental reasons like The War on Drugs and etc than the fact that companies aren't making a mission to hire them.

You've got the cart before the horse. Those governmental policies--like hiring practices that are driven by unexamined privilege and prejudice--are manifestations of the deeply-embedded prejudices that are the root cause of group-based disadvantage.
Nov 15, 2017 5:07 AM
Detrimental
Infinitus Corsair
Detrimental
Janson Jinnistan
DetrimentalI really don't think you know how to read. I said "pursuing it" is a bad thing, not diversity itself.

Well let's not pursue it and see how much of this good diversity you end up with.

Why do you think women and minorities aren't up to the task of getting jobs without companies going out of their way to hire them?

Literally because of attitudes you're espousing in this thread.

If you look good on paper and did well in the interview a person is going to want to hire you. Sure you will have a harder time if you're a minority. But after awhile you'll get enough of said minorities in businesses and then they can hire people with a more objective eye (or maybe even more biased eye towards their own).?

Yes, generations of disadvantaged groups--just wait several generations for a few brave (and statistically lucky) representatives to gradually break down thousands of years of deeply-ingrained racism and sexism. Sure, you will miss out on opportunities that privileged groups take for granted and thus--collectively--enjoy a lower quality of life. But just knowing that your descendants will thrive will doubtless warm your heart.
Nov 15, 2017 4:52 AM
Detrimental
Janson Jinnistan
DetrimentalI really don't think you know how to read. I said "pursuing it" is a bad thing, not diversity itself.

Well let's not pursue it and see how much of this good diversity you end up with.

Why do you think women and minorities aren't up to the task of getting jobs without companies going out of their way to hire them?

Literally because of attitudes you're espousing in this thread.
Nov 15, 2017 4:36 AM
Detrimental

a) The point of a school is to teach kids stuff, so it might be good to teach them how to get along with a diverse number of people
b) It's an hindrance because you might start getting a number of minorities who have no business being in said workplace because they were chosen over a more qualified person based on their minority status.
c) A business is a place where you work to get things done. A business is trying to compete with numerous other businesses to make money. To sit there and wonder how I can end racism with my diversity quotas or w/e isn't conducive to competing with other businesses. You will probably lose money on handicapping yourself that way.

(a) But why bother to teach children to get along with other people if we're not going to worry about diversity and inclusion when things get serious in the real world of business.

(b) You don't have to hire unqualified people to promote and value diversity and inclusion. You can hire the non-white men who are qualified for the job. And the assumption that those choices would be unqualified is an obvious manifestation of the very prejudice we're talking about that needs to be confronted in order to begin removing the barriers to opportunity and success that the victims of prejudice experience.

(c) Again, the idea that promoting inclusion will destroy your business's profitability is a phantom itself rooted in prejudice.

And I don't want to be a dick but, dude, you are the least-qualified person here to talk about the impacts of diversity on businesses. I'm a professional and I've been a commercial litigator for over a decade. I majored in business as an undergrad. I am active participant in the real world. Please put the red pill down and absorb the not-inconsiderable wisdom that is still imparted on this dying forum populated by a handful of genuinely intelligent people.
Nov 15, 2017 4:23 AM
Detrimental
Infinitus Corsair
Detrimental
Infinitus Corsair
Detrimental
Janson Jinnistan
DetrimentalI don't think being diverse is something that should be high priority for a company that wants to make money.

I hear that slavery was quite profitable.

A company not caring about being diverse is akin to slavery? You might want to scale back the hyperbole there.

The hyperbole is to emphasize the point--at some point morals trump profits.

Diversity in the workplace isn't some moral imperative. It's more of a nicety than anything.

Lack of diversity is a manifestation of humanity's ingrained penchant for division and tribalism, of which slavery is just the worst manifestation. They are of a kind and a failure to treat diversity and inclusion as a moral imperative--indeed, to view it merely as a "nicety"--is the sort of thing that makes more obviously destructive divisions viable.

Maybe it's important in a place like a school where kids have to learn to get along and shit. But in the workplace where the main objective is getting shit done wasting time and money on promoting diversity is more of a hindrance than anything. I don't think we're going to fix division and tribalism from some bureaucratic attempts to get us to get along, it'll probably just make things worse.

So much to unpack.
(a) What makes you think getting along with other people is any less imperative in a workplace than a school?
(b) Why is it a hindrance? What does it hinder?
(c) I don't think bigotry and prejudice are going to be "fixed" on any meaningful time horizon but it is a moral imperative to confront them and redress their degrading effects on human beings. And one of the most elemental aspects of confronting prejudice is to actively work against our tendency to homogenize our gathering places (including businesses) and continuing to favor groups whose preeminence is built on advantages accruing to them by past prejudicial actions. Doing anything else only reinforces and ossifies those prejudices.
Nov 15, 2017 4:05 AM
Detrimental
Infinitus Corsair
Detrimental
Janson Jinnistan
DetrimentalI don't think being diverse is something that should be high priority for a company that wants to make money.

I hear that slavery was quite profitable.

A company not caring about being diverse is akin to slavery? You might want to scale back the hyperbole there.

The hyperbole is to emphasize the point--at some point morals trump profits.

Diversity in the workplace isn't some moral imperative. It's more of a nicety than anything.

Lack of diversity is a manifestation of humanity's ingrained penchant for division and tribalism, of which slavery is just the worst manifestation. They are of a kind and a failure to treat diversity and inclusion as a moral imperative--indeed, to view it merely as a "nicety"--is the sort of thing that makes more obviously destructive divisions viable.
Nov 15, 2017 3:45 AM
Detrimental
Janson Jinnistan
DetrimentalI don't think being diverse is something that should be high priority for a company that wants to make money.

I hear that slavery was quite profitable.

A company not caring about being diverse is akin to slavery? You might want to scale back the hyperbole there.

The hyperbole is to emphasize the point--at some point morals trump profits.
Nov 15, 2017 3:21 AM