Jump to content
270soft Forum

Random Political Poll


vcczar
 Share

Random Political Poll  

17 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following do you generally approve of?

    • Cancel culture
    • Fact checkers
    • Social Equity
    • Racial Equity
    • Me Too Movement
    • Black Lives Matter
    • Blue Lives Matter
    • American Nationalism
    • White Nationalism
      0
    • Politicized Professional Sports
    • Alternative Facts
      0
    • Conspiracy Theories
    • Bipartisanship
    • Partisanship
    • Non-Partisanship
    • MAGA (Make America Great)
    • Anti-fascism (Antifa)
    • Social Media
    • The Media
    • The right to protest
    • Protests
    • Protesters
    • Militarized politics
    • Left-wing populism
    • Right-wing populism
    • Progressivism
    • Liberalism
    • Moderates
    • Conservatism
    • Traditionalism
    • Never Trump Movement
    • Green New Deal
    • The term illegal immigrants
    • The term undocumented immigrants
    • Political correctness
    • Freedom to use whatever language you wish to use towards a demographic, even if it is insensitive
    • Anti-Intellectualism
    • Intellectualism
    • Academics
    • Internet "influencers"
    • Celebrities as politicians
    • Reformists
    • Patriotism
    • The Establishment
    • Anti-establishment
    • Religion in Politics
    • LGBT equality
    • Women equality
    • Slave Reparations
    • Military Intervention


Recommended Posts

The problem with any weapon in a culture war, like 'cancelling' people, is it will soon be adopted by both sides. This sort of environment is a precursor to a split (whether virtual or official), because you cannot have 1 culture where everyone is being cancelled.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anthony_270 said:

The problem with any weapon in a culture war, like 'cancelling' people, is it will soon be adopted by both sides. This sort of environment is a precursor to a split (whether virtual or official), because you cannot have 1 culture where everyone is being cancelled.

I agree. I'm on the side that predominately favors cancel culture, but I'm very skeptical of it being helpful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mostly approve of:
 
Bipartisanship, Partisanship (both is at times a fundamental principal of poltics)
The right to protest (the right to peaceful protest is crucial)
Militarized politics (This kind of language and influence is necessary. You can' throw cotton balls at dictators for example)
Moderates (they are often good to cool down the whole pack)
Conservatism
Traditionalism
The term illegal immigrants 
Intellectualism
Academics
Celebrities as politicians (depends, but generally I believe they are able to bring good ideas to the table)
Patriotism (if it's not insulting against other nations sure)
The Establishment
Religion in Politics
LGBT equality, Women equality (sure, but I believe there is a lot of victimizing involved. There are countries in which gay people might get the death penalty, but some people for example are debating whether to call a doctor ''doctox'' to include all genders. That has nothing to do for me with achieving equality for anyone. We are already living in the most progressive age ever.)
Military Intervention (that needs to be on the table with certain countries, when they become a threat to global peace)

I mostly disapprove of:

Cancel culture (It's idiotic not to watch football just because some people think they have to kneel... likewise it's weird to not buy Uncle Ben's rice if it tastes good and was bought for ages without complaining)

Fact checkers, (I often feel they are biased)

Social Equity, Racial Equity (that's just racism the other way round, like some college holding ceremonies just for one ethnic group... I thought we have moved rightly past racial segregation)

Me Too Movement (On the whole I don't like activism very much. Surely a woman should be helped when facing a problem at her workplace but I don't think a Twitter campaign will help in any way. Some men might also be blamed falsely. That's dangerous.)

Black Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter (I support both messages, but I think the groups, especially Black Lives Matter, does it wrong. I never heard of Blue Lives Matter protests, so I guess they behave better but still I don't like this activist notion)

American Nationalism (I guess that's the worse form of patriotism)

White Nationalism (no, we don't need nations made of whites. We need nations made of people with good character)

Politicized Professional Sports (Yeah the whole MLB and NFL stuff is weird. Did MLB ever criticize China? No.),

Alternative Facts (If these are lies I disapprove of them, if these are just inconvienent truths it's ok)

Conspiracy Theories (no one needs them) 

Non-Partisanship (I disapprove of anarchism) 

MAGA (Make America Great) (The cult is a wrong notion, but the message itself isn't bad) 

Anti-fascism (Antifa) 

Social Media, The Media (Social Media is boring, the media people are mostly hypocrites)

Protests, Protesters, (I usually don't like protests at all, they only bring chaos and rising tensions in society)

Left-wing populism < Right-wing populism (but any form of populism is bad) 

Progressivism, Liberalism (economical it's fine, socially probably bad, I don't like ''legalizing it''), 

Never Trump Movement (nope that goes to far, and the Lincoln Project has lost any credibility by now...),

Green New Deal, 

The term undocumented immigrants, 

Political correctness, 

Freedom to use whatever language you wish to use towards a demographic, even if it is insensitive (insulting some one is utterly wrong)

Anti-Intellectualism, Internet "influencers" (one is probably a synonym for the other. I don't know about the situation in the US, but German speaking influencers are among the most annoying breed I can think of) 

Reformists, Anti-establishment,

Slave Reparations (We can't blame this generation for the atrocities of the former)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Social Equity, Racial Equity (that's just racism the other way round, like some college holding ceremonies just for one ethnic group... I thought we have moved rightly past racial segregation)

I think you are cherry picking one small part of social, racial equity. There's a lot more to it. 

Equity is based on focusing on high-need in order to achieve true equality. For instance, let's say you own an engineering company. Your 300 employees are 90% men and 85% white. You are based in a city that is 53% women and 60% white. Your company is one of the most sought after companies to work for in your city. While your company policy isn't focusing on white male employees, there as some factors that are failing to bring equality to your business, even though your policy is to be equal. That is, you aren't purposely blocking women and blacks from working for you. It's just that the system is unequal. Here's some reasons why that might be the case: 

  • Years of male dominance in this field leads to few degrees attained by women in this field. The professors are entirely male and the acceptance rate for women is not as high as men, even though the applications for going to the engineer school is of similar quality. Much of this is because the predominately male panel is thinking of a male engineer when deciding who gets accepted and who does not, even if they don't think they're treating the women equally. 
  • A disproportionate number of blacks live in single-parent households, drop out of high school, can't get funding for college or to stay in college. Those that do make it through might have a more difficult time landing an engineering job, especially for a company that is 85% white. Those in charge of hiring your employees are more likely to hire people similar to themselves, even if they don't realize they are doing it. 
  • Black women engineers will have an even harder time. 

While equality legally exists for your company it clearly isn't existing by fact. This is where equity comes in. Hiring policies that are geared towards equity are often inline with affirmative action, however there's ways to adapt it to something more palatable for someone not liking the term. For instance, you could institute a policy that your demographics aren't representative of city demographics, but representative of demographics within engineer. That is, if 70% of engineers are male and 65% are white, then you might introduce a policy geared towards introducing more women and black engineers, so long as they show they can do the work of white males (which is very likely the case).  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Your 300 employees are 90% men

Equity assumes equal distribution of interest, and so on, between groups (however you decide to cut up the population).

It's a false premise - groups differ in all sorts of ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

Equity assumes equal distribution of interest, and so on, between groups (however you decide to cut up the population).

It's a false premise - groups differ in all sorts of ways.

That's captured later on in my post. Where I mention an equity hiring policy that would fit the "distribution of interest."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@vcczar 'Equity' (i.e., forcing the same average outcomes for various groups) assumes such same outcomes will be good for society. It's another false premise.

Society is much better with women on ave. specializing in certain areas and men on ave. specializing in others, that fit with their interests, aptitudes, and so on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, vcczar said:

For instance, you could institute a policy that your demographics aren't representative of city demographics, but representative of demographics within engineer.

Why not just hire the best people for the job?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

Why not just hire the best people for the job?

In my post, I'm implying that they are of equivalent ability. 

For instance, what would you think is going on if your company had a hiring committee of three white males. There are 30 applicants for 10 positions. 20 of the applicants are also white males. Five applicants are black males. 4 are white women. 1 is a black woman. The committee finds that five are clearly the best qualified for the job--best resume and ivy leaguers. They also happen to be White males. You then have five other spots. The committee finds that there is no clearly frontrunner for the next 5 positions as all the applicants had similar grades from similar colleges, have similar experience, have similar accomplishments, etc. Ultimately, the hiring committee fills the remaining 5 positions with 4 more white males and 1 white woman. 

As a company owner, would you encourage your hiring committee to considering giving a second-thought to minorities if all talents, experience, etc. is apparently equal, considering there may have been some sort of unconscious bias? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

Nowhere do you mention 'distribution of interest'.

I was using your label to apply to my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

@Conservative Elector 2 "Women equality" How do you understand this term?

Basically as women having the same rights as men.

29 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think you are cherry picking one small part of social, racial equity. There's a lot more to it. 

I appreciate your thoughtful example, but look I'd be fine having a company with 100% black employees if these are the best people available. But hiring a certain group of people just to advance them is not what should be done I think. Skills should truly matter when hiring someone. I also don't like women needing less points on entry tests or something like that. First of all that seems like women or minorities are dumb and need assistance to achieve success and second of all I'd like all people to be treated the same way - fairly. That's achieved by giving everyone a fair and equal chance. When minorities and women are allowed to participate and when they need the same number of points as white men, equal chances are already achieved.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

@vcczar 'Equity' (i.e., forcing the same average outcomes for various groups) assumes such same outcomes will be good for society. It's another false premise.

Society is much better with women on ave. specializing in certain areas and men on ave. specializing in others, that fit with their interests, aptitudes, and so on.

 

Okay, well what about a situation in which degree holders are nearly equal but representation in the profession is unequal. One example of this is in publishing--especially literary publication. It's not as much of a problem now because of greater equity in this field, but as late in the 1990s, women writers and their allies crusaded against the most prolific publishing companies and literary award committees because they were extremely disproportionately male, publishing disproportionately male authors, and awarding awards to disproportionately male authors, despite a supposed large number of overlooked women of great ability as authors. 

Today publishing companies and literary awards seem much more balanced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

As a company owner, would you encourage your hiring committee to considering giving a second-thought to minorities if all talents, experience, etc. is apparently equal, considering there may have been some sort of unconscious bias?

This can happen with very large organizations simultaneously accepting large numbers of candidates (ex., universities offering acceptance to prospective undergrads). In most real life situations? It's not realistic. How do you know the bias doesn't go the other way?

Here's a real life example.

I was the Grad student rep for the departmental hiring committee for a tenure-track position. The department had more male than female Professors. I sat in on the various departmental meetings. The applications had been narrowed to 4 candidates. Multiple people explicitly stated they wanted to hire a female candidate *because she was female*.

The department offered the job to the female candidate. She declined, and instead accepted a job somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

That's achieved by giving everyone a fair and equal chance.

How would you best allow this chance for someone born, raised, and educated in the poorest neighborhood in a city? Let's say his or her high school education, although completed, is inadequate because of the quality of teachers, educational tools, etc. Perhaps this person hasn't even internet at home, but did what they could at the public library. He needs more training, but he cannot afford more training. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anthony_270 said:

This can happen with very large organizations simultaneously accepting large numbers of candidates (ex., universities offering acceptance to prospective undergrads). In most real life situations? It's not realistic. How do you know the bias doesn't go the other way?

Here's a real life example.

I was the Grad student rep for the departmental hiring committee for a tenure-track position. The department had more male than female Professors. I sat in on the various departmental meetings. The applications had been narrowed to 4 candidates. Multiple people explicitly stated they wanted to hire a female candidate *because she was female*.

The department offered the job to the female candidate. She declined, and instead accepted a job somewhere else.

It definitely could. For instance, if a company has 60% minority women and hires another minority woman when most of the applicants are white males, then there might be an unconscious bias. 

In regards to your example, I'm not supportive of affirmative action when it deprives someone of a job that is clearly a better candidate. I'm for it when there is no clearly noticeable difference. That is, if it is a job in which most people of that profession will be able to handle equally, then I think affirmative action is more appropriate. It doesn't even have to be about race but about opportunity in general. If all ability appears to be equal, I'm more likely to consider giving the job to the person that needs it more -- maybe they grew up in a poor neighborhood, maybe they're physically disabled and someone is less likely to hire a handicapped person even if their disability won't stop them from doing the job, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Okay, well what about a situation in which degree holders are nearly equal but representation in the profession is unequal.

The role of a publishing house is to find authors who might sell well. If they aren't doing that, it's the role of competing publishing houses to find those people instead.

There is no guarantee that this is going to end up being 50-50, or reflect the undergraduate degree %s between men and women (what is it, 25%-75% nowadays?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

I'm for it when there is no clearly noticeable difference

Ya, a tie-breaker factor. I've never been in a situation where the candidates were a true toss-up. I don't think this is that common in smaller organizations. Again, in very large organizations, that might be something that happens often (such as university applications).

But look at what actually happens with university applications in the U.S. - certain preferred groups are given bonus points to their applications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, vcczar said:

might be an unconscious bias.

I'm not talking about unconscious bias - I'm talking about explicit, conscious bias in favour of the female applicant.

That's where things are at in many places right now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

I'm not talking about unconscious bias - I'm talking about explicit, conscious bias in favour of the female applicant.

That's where things are at in many places right now.

 

Here's an interesting map on Affirmative Action:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Affirmative_Action_Policies_in_the_United_States_by_state.png

It's interesting that WA and CA ban affirmative action and selective employment (states in Green have bans). 

TX had banned it but now it is legal. 

LA, MS, AL, GA, TN, KY, SC, NC, ND, SD, MT, WY, UT allow affirmative action or selective employment (states in purple)

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right on cue, Trump statement. Yep, your cultural opponents will adopt your weapons if you keep it up long enough.

"For years the Radical Left Democrats have played dirty by boycotting products when anything from that company is done or stated in any way that offends them. Now they are going big time with WOKE CANCEL CULTURE and our sacred elections. It is finally time for Republicans and Conservatives to fight back—we have more people than they do—by far! Boycott Major League Baseball, Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines, JPMorgan Chase, ViacomCBS, Citigroup, Cisco, UPS, and Merck. Don’t go back to their products until they relent. We can play the game better than them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, vcczar said:

How would you best allow this chance for someone born, raised, and educated in the poorest neighborhood in a city? Let's say his or her high school education, although completed, is inadequate because of the quality of teachers, educational tools, etc. Perhaps this person hasn't even internet at home, but did what they could at the public library. He needs more training, but he cannot afford more training. 

I support free Community colleges, so that person could attend such an institution as long as they constantly work properly for their success. I don't think we could get all people into top tier universities. That's not doable, but I wouldn't object if these colleges held annual entrance exams and choose like the top-10 people for a scholarship after they have proven not to be secretly rich. This tests should discriminate or promote any race of course. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I'd like to add to celebrities as politicians is, I'd find it interesting if a moderate Matthew McConaughey ran for Texas governor. However, Meghan Markle on the other hand comes off as having a very annoying attitude, so this issue really depends on the person itself not their status of being a celebrity.

Like a decade ago, I had approved of George Clooney running for president - not to support him, but at least it had been interesting. That was the time when Clooney or Al Gore were the people on the forefront of climate activism. Since Fridays for Future the whole thing has gotten way worse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...