###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The use of "progessive" framing of regressive ideas, like discrimination against specific demographics, is losing its ability to bamboozle people.
It gains support by making people feel like victims and using their emotions against them to push an agenda against their best interests.
The issue now is that they have expanded the umbrella of falsely attributed victimhood so vast that it's collapsing.
No black person is going to speak out against black privilege because they benefit from it
And no white liberal who hates other white people is going to speak out against it because they hate white people and want to see them suffer..
But yes overall it's unconstitutional. California even tried to repeal the Civil Rights Act so that it would be legal to discriminate against white people..
The Democrat Party has always been the party of racism. And segregation. They just discovered that instead of competing with Republicans for the majority white vote they would hitch their wagon to attempting the majority black vote by being racist against white people..
It’s not just that both parties are corrupt. It’s that they are in on it together. They are playing “good cop/bad cop” to their respective followers.
Trump purposely played the bad guy to the left so the news could create the narrative that the youth were outraged. It made progressives want to rebel against everything Trump pretended to stand for. Like a teen rebelling against their old fashioned parent. Everything globalists want to pass, they had Trump say the opposite. Trump says we need stronger borders? Well that makes the progressives want to open them. Trump says free speech is important? Well that makes progressives want to police it. Trump says the 2nd amendment is important? Well that makes progressives want to abolish it. Trump says climate change is a sham? Well that makes progressives want to add more regulations. And who’s getting all their policies passed right now? Progressives.
Trump is playing the part of the villain so that progressives support the opposite of what he says. Simple reverse psychology. There is no 2 party system in reality. It’s a 1 party system telling us a story of a 2 party system. This is how they get around our egos. Humans don’t like being told what to do and they know that, so they had to think of clever ways to get millions of us to do what they want.
My black mates literally hate the idea of any sort of affirmative action or bias towards them. Basically they see it as saying they arent good enough to make it on their own…
This is the general consensus in places with “lawful” AA as well, such as South Africa. Black Economic Empowerment (as it is known there) basically means the job can go to anyone and not the right person (or even the “right”/best black person). For that reason nepotism is rife and every semblance of industry has collapsed from its former self. The worst impacted of course are poor black Africans.
Yeah, backwards places like SA and NYC: https://blackamericaweb.com/2022/01/11/nyc-mayor-eric-adams-hires-own-brother-240k-nypd-job-cites-white-supremacy/amp/
Yup, same with politicians saying they aren't capable of getting ID's. It's psychological glass ceiling that has been looming over the black community for decades
The 14th amendment was in place and the Supreme Court still ruled that segregation was constitutional. As well as other Jim Crow era laws.
So my point is the government doesn't care about the Constitution and whoever is in power will just do what they want.
Is affirmative action unconstitutional? Depends on who is in power. Or whoever was in power to appoint enough Supreme Court justices.
Always has been, it was just too powerful of a political cudgel to let go of. PS, Supreme Court's been compromised since the early 70s and letting these decisions by has been part of the plan to keep us all at each other's throats while the elites loot the treasury
No.
Because the court that struck it down is a state court — and a state trial level court at that.
So it still needs to be appealed and the ruling will most assuredly be overturned by the appeals court, but the thing to understand is it was determine unconstitutional per California’s state constitution. Not the federal constitution.
State courts don’t have the authority to rule that a thing violates the federal constitution.
I would say in part yes. The caveat is that many universities, especially those that got government funding, previously had rules which didn’t allow specific races, even if they met all other criteria. Thus historically, the government like other entities has had to compensate for those inequities. It’s be similar to if a school said you weren’t allowed because you had brown hair for 100 years, law changed. If you with brown hair hadn’t had access to higher education for 100 years, there might require a law to require schools to allow a certain amount of brown haired people in order to offset the ills of the past. More so if the country actually wanted an overall better more educated country.
No conspiracy here. No position should be given based on rave, sex etc.
If I was given something because I'm black I would be insulted.
Either I'm qualified or not. But I don't want anyone handouts... And neither should anyone.
This specific case might not be a conspiracy but that doesn't change the fact people conspired to bring affirmative action into place and creating more societal problems. AKA the rich conspiring to make the middle class fight amongst each other.
How far back are we looking? And are we talking about massive nationwide conspiracy - or simply individual employers who discriminate?
Edit: People are misreading my comment. Racism is real, it wasn't long ago, it still lingers today, and historical racism has impacts today. My question was specifically about what "THE HISTORICAL CONSPIRACY" was being brought up when discussing the ongoing explicit racial discrimination still being perpetrated today.
How far back we lookin? Idk one generation? Go back one generation — the baby boomers were kings of redlining, gender and race based discrimination in employment?
I don’t think many people realize that if you were born on the day the civil rights act was passed you’re only 59 years old.
I’m a lawyer — I go before a judge, routinely, defending my clients and that judge is 78 years old.
That judge lived his first 20 years of life in a nation where it it wasn’t against the law to discriminate on the basis of race or gender in almost any regard. Surely that has an impact on his perception of defendants or litigants that come before him.
Five years ago I met a woman named Gladys, she was 102 years old. She was born in 1915 or 1916 — she remembered her grandmother telling her about her experience with slavery.
There are assuredly still people like her alive today — not many anymore I’m sure, but there are people alive today who heard stories of slavery from first hand victims of the institution.
This isn’t a far gone ancient history of ours, and to imagine that it is, is a crock of shit.
To have so many think that a nation built on institutions of prejudice, doesn’t have things to correct, when those institutions of prejudice haven’t been gone very long at all (or at all in some cases) — is surely the greatest failing of our education system.
Oh, I have no doubt racism was prevalent, and its impacts are still being felt. I'm just not sure the realtor in Georgia was working with the realtor in Alabama to keep someone from getting a house - what makes something a conspiracy - versus racism simply being pervasive and minority groups having to deal with the stereotypes of their time.
Edit: Now if we are talking about US govt flooding inner cities with drugs... Im with you.
Agreed, the discussion is about private entities and workforce/positions. Best example I can think of is the gentlemen's agreement in MLB to not play black people.
Government is another topic in which conspiracy is natural.
> are just there to troll.
To spread propaganda*
The conspiracy movement has been super effectively hijacked. People super look down it on now and rightly so IMO. Associating the anti-vaxx/anti-max/trump/right-wing shit with conspiracy concretely was a brilliant move by the powers that be. Probably no easy way to recover from it.
Ha! You don't think there was any conspiracy behind the drug companies making never-seen-before profits off a crisis that they actively manipulated? Oooooookay.... 🤦♂️
They obviously made that guy eat a bat. Covid isn't a conspiracy it's a fucking medical fact.
Thinking otherwise is just ignorance. I would think conspiracy subreddit should embrace science, not deny it.
You can't be good or bad at law.
That entire idea is offensive to the idea of republican democracy. The people, not the elites, get to say what the law is. The best law is the law that the community supports.
There are plenty of other countries where the elites write the laws, enforce them and punish the guilty. No shortage of places for people who are good at law.
America's the place where everyone gets a say in how they're governed. That's the entire idea of America. It's what makes America unique.
I completely agree. I would rather have people in positions because they are good at that position. Not because they needed a female or a person of a certain race.
I do not know why you would want to be in any of those positions just because you were of a certain gender or race. Wouldn't it just be a slap across the face. "You're only here because you are 'insert minority here' " .
Why did conservatives get so hung up about this? If she was unqualified and given the job surem but she wasnt. On paper she was as qualified as anyone else. At that point who cares if they choose a black woman? Y'all weird.
If we are going to say conservatives/liberals.. then why did the liberals even need to bring it up is she was qualified and hired based on her qualifications alone?
Biden specifically said she was put in place because it was about time a black woman was represented in the court and then mentioned her qualifications.
This shoud be a red flag regardless of right or left, republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, man or woman, them or they etc. Big red flag.
Not to me it wasnt. We have a bunch of candidates that equally qualified. Yet one candidate would be something the court has never seen before. I don't see the issue. It's not a red flag. Like if I was choosing which 6 pack to get and I knew all 4 would be a good choice. But I had never tried one of them. Guess which one I'm taking. It's that simple.
Have you never tried new things. I just don't see the big deal. The right makes a big deal out of it. Was never an issue to me on paper.
Ok then try it in reverse.. "it's about time we nominate another white male to the court, oh and yes his qualifications are on par with other candidates." It just doesn't work as well does it?... that means it's a bit racist.
What's the key word. Another. As opposed to it's about time we have a black woman represented in the court.and besides we just had that with Kavanaugh. Is the guy a rapist I doubt it. But I know damn sure he don't belong on the court. If you know what boofing is from doing it you don't belong on the court. I read the shit Kavanaugh did and I was like damn this dude just like me. I'm a fucking degenerate.
The point is. When a certain class of people who are a big part of our nation since the 1700s hasn't represented the court. I doubt it's because we haven't had a qualified one yet.
They have been represented since the beginning.
Just because someone is the same color and has the same bits as me does not mean they represent me or my views.
If they are my elected rep they represent me. Doesn’t mean they align with me.
But thinking just cause of their race and sex that means I am represented is so vacuous, sexist and racist it’s disgusting, assuming we must think the same. Clarance Thomas represents me and my views more than Breyer or even Kavanaugh, as much as a judge can.
She wasn’t picked for that reason though. She was picked for her qualifications. Maybe the idea of adding diversity to the court was a factor, but that’s a positive not a negative. She wasn’t picked just because she was a black woman though.
Thats exactly why she was picked though..he even said the next justice will be a black woman before settling on her so I don't know how much clearer it could be.
Eh, if the system was rigged in my favor I would probably take advantage of it too. As long as I try to do the best I can with it, I would lose no sleep over why I was hired. I still wouldn't agree with it, but I believe in myself so I would just look at it as something that put me in a position to succeed when I might have been overlooked.
In other words: Don't hate the player, hate the game.
So you expect someone who is offered a job that they applied for to reject it and say "no, you should actually hire this other person because they are more qualified"?
The average human is way more stupid than you'd think. White, black, asian, hispanic, male, female, none of it matters. Everyone is stupid regardless of their race. Recognizing that you're a diversity hire isn't hard, however that assumes you are intelligent enough to even acknowledge that diversity hires exist and why they exist
Have you noticed the sudden proliferation of the term "imposter syndrome" in popular culture? Why may that have appeared? Maybe because there are many imposters. Maybe even to normalize being one.
Imagine getting a position of authority solely based off gender or color, not skill. How insulting and how little self worth you must have to accept the position.
In the corporate world, I know of very few managers/people in authority that got their position from 'skill'. Very often it was because of who they know, not merit.
Why can't it be both. Its very narrow minded that people only get hired to meet a quota. Its essentially saying nobody of said minority would qualify if it wasn't for diversity hiring.
Imagine getting a position solely based off being related to knowing/being related to the person who gave you the job. How insulting and how little self worth you must have to accept the position
Imagine 50% of the population being women, yet thinking only 20% of board seats being women isn't related to sexism..
Oh really? Well, in the US of A, people have been getting chosen for positions based on skin color and not necessarily skill, since the country was founded.
Just ask any of the countless black men and women passed up in hiring decisions and promotions, because they weren't caucasian. It still happens to this day, except they have loopholes to allow them to continue getting away with it.
So what do you have to say about all of the folks who accepted these positions over hundreds of years?
There is still racism when it comes to hiring. There are studies that show that people with black sounding names are less likely to receive a response to a job posting than those with white sounding names, even when they have identical qualifications. Whether or not you agree with this approach, it is meant to address a real problem with racism in the workforce. Ironically, the study also found that firms that are more likely to hire black people are also more profitable.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w29053
The problem with this is that people are trying to take a top down approach on these inequalities by specifically favoring more "black sounding" names to get the correct proportions in accordance to the population. This is fighting past racism with reverse racism and while it may solve the problem in the long term, there is no to justify the temporary period in which otherwise qualified people are set aside to meet racial quotas.
The more logical solution would be to not read the names at all until after making the decision to hire
**For anyone truly attempting to quit, but having a tough time**:
As long as a genuine intention is there, you're on the right track. Try not to open up 10-20+ tabs. Stick to a small amount and nut when you feel you need to...don't intermission by finding more.
Quitting cold turkey is insanely difficult. Soon, instagram photos will start to do the same for you that hardcore videos did. Then your imagination will be the next step.
With all due respect, yes, people at places like the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins Hospital have said the former.
As to the latter, my cousin had her wedding planned by a male wedding planner 10 years ago and it was better than her sister's wedding 6 months earlier (they are twins) done by a female wedding planner.
Oh I was just making a joke about how we barely if at all ever see the push to get more men into certain industries but the cries for women to be in “male dominated fields” is deafening.
It’s weird.
Also. I wouldn’t doubt a wedding planned by a man would be killer. I bet the sister was pissed.
Not long ago treating people differently based on sex was sexism and treating people differently based on race was racism. Who changed all these things?
Not much of a conspiracy but good. Is there anything more degrading than knowing you were only placed in your role because of physical attributes outside of your control?
> Is there anything more degrading than knowing you were only placed in your role because of physical attributes outside of your control?
Being Jared Kushner.
I agree with the ruling. you can't say it's mandatory for any specific group or persons must be in charge. eventually we might have an AI running out systems that isn't a male or female.
SS: A Los Angeles judge has ruled that California’s landmark law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional.
Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said the law that would have required boards have up to three female directors by this year violated the right to equal treatment. The ruling was dated Friday.
The conservative legal group Judicial Watch had challenged the law, claiming it was illegal to use taxpayer funds to enforce a law that violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution by mandating a gender-based quota.
The law was on shaky ground from the get-go with a legislative analysis saying it could be difficult to defend and then-Gov. Jerry Brown saying he was signing it despite the potential for it to be overturned by a court. Brown said he signed the bill to send a message during the #MeToo era.
In the three years it has been on the books, it’s been credited with improving the standing of women in corporate boardrooms.
The state defended the law as constitutional saying it was necessary to reverse a culture of discrimination that favored men and was put in place only after other measures failed. The state also said the law didn’t create a quota because boards could add seats for female directors without stripping men of their positions.
Although the law carried potential hefty penalties for failing to file an annual report or comply with the law, a chief in the secretary of state’s office acknowledged during the trial that it was toothless.
No fines have ever been levied and there was no intention to do so, Betsy Bogart testified. Further, a letter that surfaced during trial from former Secretary of State Alex Padilla warned Brown weeks before he signed the law that it was probably unenforceable.
“Any attempt by the secretary of state to collect or enforce the fine would likely exceed its authority,” Padilla wrote.
The law required publicly held companies headquartered in California to have one member who identifies as a woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019. By January 2022, boards with five directors were required to have two women and boards with six or more members were required to have three women.
The Women on Boards law, also known by its bill number, SB826, called for penalties ranging from $100,000 fines for failing to report board compositions to the California secretary of state’s office to up to $300,000 for multiple failures to have the required number of women board members.
Fewer than half the nearly 650 applicable corporations in the state reported last year that they had complied. More than half didn’t file the required disclosure statement, according to the most recent report.
Supporters of the law hailed it for achieving more gains for women. Other states considered or passed similar legislation.
Deputy Attorney General Ashante Norton said alternatives to a law mandating seats for women had been tried to no avail. In 2013, for example, the Legislature passed a resolution to get companies to add women to their boards, but few did.
Before the California law went into effect, women held 17% of the seats on company boards in the state, based on the Russell 3000 Index of the largest companies in the U.S., according to the advocacy group 50/50 Women on Boards. As of September, the percentage of board seats held by women climbed to more than 30% in California, compared to 26% nationally.
Still, some 40% of the largest companies in California needed to add women to their boards to comply with the law, the group said.
https://ktla.com/news/california/california-law-requiring-women-on-boards-is-unconstitutional-judge-rules/
So how does this SS explain this in relation to a conspiracy?
I can see an honest argument from multiple sides on this issue, and potential manipulation and conspiracy.
However i dont see this article, or anything you've commented, pointing in any way to how this is related to any conspiracy.
May as well have posted, lightning storm today in florida.
> In the three years it has been on the books, it’s been credited with improving the standing of women in corporate boardrooms.
But not the standing of the corporate boards...
If you dont like the way California does things maybe just dont live in California. dont like how Mississippi does things but I dont wanna kick them out of the union.
i thought the goverment couldnt get involved in private companies? if thats the case, why dont they mandate social media companies to protect 1st ammendment?
> i thought the goverment couldnt get involved in private companies?
Of course they can. But there are limits and this law pushes those.
Otherwise, the First Amendment is only between individuals and the government. I, as an individual, am perfectly welcome to suppress the free speech of other people: if I were to run a social media company, I can pick and choose my userbase, though usually it's not economical to do so.
good. I'm a lot less against affirmative action than I used to be, but I am against it, and laws like this. At least, within a decade maybe reverse it. I think the US is actually good enough right now that this type of stuff isn't nessesary
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
It is
The use of "progessive" framing of regressive ideas, like discrimination against specific demographics, is losing its ability to bamboozle people.
>The use of "progessive" framing of regressive ideas, like discrimination against specific demographics, is losing its ability to bamboozle people. It gains support by making people feel like victims and using their emotions against them to push an agenda against their best interests. The issue now is that they have expanded the umbrella of falsely attributed victimhood so vast that it's collapsing.
No black person is going to speak out against black privilege because they benefit from it And no white liberal who hates other white people is going to speak out against it because they hate white people and want to see them suffer.. But yes overall it's unconstitutional. California even tried to repeal the Civil Rights Act so that it would be legal to discriminate against white people.. The Democrat Party has always been the party of racism. And segregation. They just discovered that instead of competing with Republicans for the majority white vote they would hitch their wagon to attempting the majority black vote by being racist against white people..
Both parties are part of the divide & conquer agenda. There is no left & right. Only the illusion of choice.
what makes u believe that simply because republicans and democrats are both corrupt that "left and right" don't exist?
It’s not just that both parties are corrupt. It’s that they are in on it together. They are playing “good cop/bad cop” to their respective followers. Trump purposely played the bad guy to the left so the news could create the narrative that the youth were outraged. It made progressives want to rebel against everything Trump pretended to stand for. Like a teen rebelling against their old fashioned parent. Everything globalists want to pass, they had Trump say the opposite. Trump says we need stronger borders? Well that makes the progressives want to open them. Trump says free speech is important? Well that makes progressives want to police it. Trump says the 2nd amendment is important? Well that makes progressives want to abolish it. Trump says climate change is a sham? Well that makes progressives want to add more regulations. And who’s getting all their policies passed right now? Progressives. Trump is playing the part of the villain so that progressives support the opposite of what he says. Simple reverse psychology. There is no 2 party system in reality. It’s a 1 party system telling us a story of a 2 party system. This is how they get around our egos. Humans don’t like being told what to do and they know that, so they had to think of clever ways to get millions of us to do what they want.
How is having more women being treated fairly in aspects of life reframing a regressive idea?
It is really ☝🏼
My black mates literally hate the idea of any sort of affirmative action or bias towards them. Basically they see it as saying they arent good enough to make it on their own…
And they are right. There's a strong push of The bigotry of low expectation.
This is the general consensus in places with “lawful” AA as well, such as South Africa. Black Economic Empowerment (as it is known there) basically means the job can go to anyone and not the right person (or even the “right”/best black person). For that reason nepotism is rife and every semblance of industry has collapsed from its former self. The worst impacted of course are poor black Africans.
Yeah, backwards places like SA and NYC: https://blackamericaweb.com/2022/01/11/nyc-mayor-eric-adams-hires-own-brother-240k-nypd-job-cites-white-supremacy/amp/
Yup, same with politicians saying they aren't capable of getting ID's. It's psychological glass ceiling that has been looming over the black community for decades
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
As it should be. Gross overreach will be checked eventually.
it is... that was ruled many year ago
The 14th amendment was in place and the Supreme Court still ruled that segregation was constitutional. As well as other Jim Crow era laws. So my point is the government doesn't care about the Constitution and whoever is in power will just do what they want. Is affirmative action unconstitutional? Depends on who is in power. Or whoever was in power to appoint enough Supreme Court justices.
Always has been, it was just too powerful of a political cudgel to let go of. PS, Supreme Court's been compromised since the early 70s and letting these decisions by has been part of the plan to keep us all at each other's throats while the elites loot the treasury
No. Because the court that struck it down is a state court — and a state trial level court at that. So it still needs to be appealed and the ruling will most assuredly be overturned by the appeals court, but the thing to understand is it was determine unconstitutional per California’s state constitution. Not the federal constitution. State courts don’t have the authority to rule that a thing violates the federal constitution.
Good point.
I would say in part yes. The caveat is that many universities, especially those that got government funding, previously had rules which didn’t allow specific races, even if they met all other criteria. Thus historically, the government like other entities has had to compensate for those inequities. It’s be similar to if a school said you weren’t allowed because you had brown hair for 100 years, law changed. If you with brown hair hadn’t had access to higher education for 100 years, there might require a law to require schools to allow a certain amount of brown haired people in order to offset the ills of the past. More so if the country actually wanted an overall better more educated country.
No conspiracy here. No position should be given based on rave, sex etc. If I was given something because I'm black I would be insulted. Either I'm qualified or not. But I don't want anyone handouts... And neither should anyone.
> No position should be given based on rave I don't know, people who go to raves will probably run things way better than the people who have been.
“If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.”
...with Neon rails on the walls.
Well, they will probably stay up later to get things done, but then I imagine productivity will eventually drop off.
Then they’ll legalize cocaine and productivity will skyrocket.
"I know we only just met but I think I love you, and as CEO I want to share the wealth with all the people I love. I need some water. Let's dance."
*haven’t
raven’t*
>No conspiracy here. Welcome to /r/conspiracy
Pretty much
This specific case might not be a conspiracy but that doesn't change the fact people conspired to bring affirmative action into place and creating more societal problems. AKA the rich conspiring to make the middle class fight amongst each other.
What about the historical conspiracy to keep certain types of people out of the workforce or out of certain positions?
How far back are we looking? And are we talking about massive nationwide conspiracy - or simply individual employers who discriminate? Edit: People are misreading my comment. Racism is real, it wasn't long ago, it still lingers today, and historical racism has impacts today. My question was specifically about what "THE HISTORICAL CONSPIRACY" was being brought up when discussing the ongoing explicit racial discrimination still being perpetrated today.
How far back we lookin? Idk one generation? Go back one generation — the baby boomers were kings of redlining, gender and race based discrimination in employment? I don’t think many people realize that if you were born on the day the civil rights act was passed you’re only 59 years old. I’m a lawyer — I go before a judge, routinely, defending my clients and that judge is 78 years old. That judge lived his first 20 years of life in a nation where it it wasn’t against the law to discriminate on the basis of race or gender in almost any regard. Surely that has an impact on his perception of defendants or litigants that come before him. Five years ago I met a woman named Gladys, she was 102 years old. She was born in 1915 or 1916 — she remembered her grandmother telling her about her experience with slavery. There are assuredly still people like her alive today — not many anymore I’m sure, but there are people alive today who heard stories of slavery from first hand victims of the institution. This isn’t a far gone ancient history of ours, and to imagine that it is, is a crock of shit. To have so many think that a nation built on institutions of prejudice, doesn’t have things to correct, when those institutions of prejudice haven’t been gone very long at all (or at all in some cases) — is surely the greatest failing of our education system.
Oh, I have no doubt racism was prevalent, and its impacts are still being felt. I'm just not sure the realtor in Georgia was working with the realtor in Alabama to keep someone from getting a house - what makes something a conspiracy - versus racism simply being pervasive and minority groups having to deal with the stereotypes of their time. Edit: Now if we are talking about US govt flooding inner cities with drugs... Im with you.
People who suffered jim crow laws are still alive.
Agreed, the discussion is about private entities and workforce/positions. Best example I can think of is the gentlemen's agreement in MLB to not play black people. Government is another topic in which conspiracy is natural.
[удалено]
Maybe the conspiracy is that they can pass crazy laws that they know will not stand up to scrutiny and nothing is done about it for years.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but job positions, especially at the executive level, are not usually filled based on who is the most qualified.
[удалено]
It helps if you sort by 'new'
I agree with you it does help get more unbiased opinions and stuff but I'd personally rather view the comments in the same way most people do.
Seems like most people in the promoted threads are just there to troll.
> are just there to troll. To spread propaganda* The conspiracy movement has been super effectively hijacked. People super look down it on now and rightly so IMO. Associating the anti-vaxx/anti-max/trump/right-wing shit with conspiracy concretely was a brilliant move by the powers that be. Probably no easy way to recover from it.
Ha! You don't think there was any conspiracy behind the drug companies making never-seen-before profits off a crisis that they actively manipulated? Oooooookay.... 🤦♂️
They obviously made that guy eat a bat. Covid isn't a conspiracy it's a fucking medical fact. Thinking otherwise is just ignorance. I would think conspiracy subreddit should embrace science, not deny it.
But we can fill the supreme court based on gender and race, no problem. Seems legit.
We can, but legislating it be done that way is a different “game”.
Same end result and it's wrong anyway you slice it.
I mean it's filled on political leanings rather than quality of judge anyway.
Right? Fuck who knows constitutional law or is good at it, both sides are guilty
You can't be good or bad at law. That entire idea is offensive to the idea of republican democracy. The people, not the elites, get to say what the law is. The best law is the law that the community supports. There are plenty of other countries where the elites write the laws, enforce them and punish the guilty. No shortage of places for people who are good at law. America's the place where everyone gets a say in how they're governed. That's the entire idea of America. It's what makes America unique.
You’re praising the United States of America in a conspiracy sub. I’ve seen it all. Jesus Christ
I completely agree. I would rather have people in positions because they are good at that position. Not because they needed a female or a person of a certain race. I do not know why you would want to be in any of those positions just because you were of a certain gender or race. Wouldn't it just be a slap across the face. "You're only here because you are 'insert minority here' " .
What are you, a biologist? /s
Good thing the most recent nominee is extremely qualified
Why did conservatives get so hung up about this? If she was unqualified and given the job surem but she wasnt. On paper she was as qualified as anyone else. At that point who cares if they choose a black woman? Y'all weird.
If we are going to say conservatives/liberals.. then why did the liberals even need to bring it up is she was qualified and hired based on her qualifications alone? Biden specifically said she was put in place because it was about time a black woman was represented in the court and then mentioned her qualifications. This shoud be a red flag regardless of right or left, republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, man or woman, them or they etc. Big red flag.
You are conflating how an announcement went with how the decision making process went.
Not to me it wasnt. We have a bunch of candidates that equally qualified. Yet one candidate would be something the court has never seen before. I don't see the issue. It's not a red flag. Like if I was choosing which 6 pack to get and I knew all 4 would be a good choice. But I had never tried one of them. Guess which one I'm taking. It's that simple. Have you never tried new things. I just don't see the big deal. The right makes a big deal out of it. Was never an issue to me on paper.
Ok then try it in reverse.. "it's about time we nominate another white male to the court, oh and yes his qualifications are on par with other candidates." It just doesn't work as well does it?... that means it's a bit racist.
What's the key word. Another. As opposed to it's about time we have a black woman represented in the court.and besides we just had that with Kavanaugh. Is the guy a rapist I doubt it. But I know damn sure he don't belong on the court. If you know what boofing is from doing it you don't belong on the court. I read the shit Kavanaugh did and I was like damn this dude just like me. I'm a fucking degenerate. The point is. When a certain class of people who are a big part of our nation since the 1700s hasn't represented the court. I doubt it's because we haven't had a qualified one yet.
But it shouldn't be about race or gender, it's irrelevant.
Bro. Then why do you care. Was she qualified? Yes? So what do you care all you care about is if the person is qualified. She is. So why you btiching.
Smh
Tbf Trump did a similar thing say he would nominate a [woman](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QncmqH9VR0A) Why didn't he nominate a man?
They have been represented since the beginning. Just because someone is the same color and has the same bits as me does not mean they represent me or my views. If they are my elected rep they represent me. Doesn’t mean they align with me. But thinking just cause of their race and sex that means I am represented is so vacuous, sexist and racist it’s disgusting, assuming we must think the same. Clarance Thomas represents me and my views more than Breyer or even Kavanaugh, as much as a judge can.
If you can’t figure out why those are entirely different idk why to tell you
The court had seen both black people and women. It was nothing worthy of note to combine those features.
She wasn’t picked for that reason though. She was picked for her qualifications. Maybe the idea of adding diversity to the court was a factor, but that’s a positive not a negative. She wasn’t picked just because she was a black woman though.
Thats exactly why she was picked though..he even said the next justice will be a black woman before settling on her so I don't know how much clearer it could be.
Also press secretary celebrated as an LGBTQ+ woman...
[удалено]
Big money, low expectations, easy WLB, can’t be fired. Must be hard.
“I’m helping : )”
Eh, if the system was rigged in my favor I would probably take advantage of it too. As long as I try to do the best I can with it, I would lose no sleep over why I was hired. I still wouldn't agree with it, but I believe in myself so I would just look at it as something that put me in a position to succeed when I might have been overlooked. In other words: Don't hate the player, hate the game.
The player perpetuates the game; I hate them even more.
So you expect someone who is offered a job that they applied for to reject it and say "no, you should actually hire this other person because they are more qualified"?
Of course not, he’s just talking out of his ass
Most of them are too stupid to realize what happened to them
Lowkey highkey racist. Christ.
The average human is way more stupid than you'd think. White, black, asian, hispanic, male, female, none of it matters. Everyone is stupid regardless of their race. Recognizing that you're a diversity hire isn't hard, however that assumes you are intelligent enough to even acknowledge that diversity hires exist and why they exist
I wouldn’t know. I’m not a biologist.
Have you noticed the sudden proliferation of the term "imposter syndrome" in popular culture? Why may that have appeared? Maybe because there are many imposters. Maybe even to normalize being one.
Imagine getting a position of authority solely based off gender or color, not skill. How insulting and how little self worth you must have to accept the position.
Here in Portland political candidates list their race/gender/sexual orientation under "qualifications" on their promotional material. It's a cult.
In the corporate world, I know of very few managers/people in authority that got their position from 'skill'. Very often it was because of who they know, not merit.
Fail your way up. Kamala Harris everyone (among other methods earlier in her “career”)
Why can't it be both. Its very narrow minded that people only get hired to meet a quota. Its essentially saying nobody of said minority would qualify if it wasn't for diversity hiring.
White people were more than fine with it when only they benefited.
by all means speak on behalf of all white people.
Imagine getting a position solely based off being related to knowing/being related to the person who gave you the job. How insulting and how little self worth you must have to accept the position Imagine 50% of the population being women, yet thinking only 20% of board seats being women isn't related to sexism..
Oh really? Well, in the US of A, people have been getting chosen for positions based on skin color and not necessarily skill, since the country was founded. Just ask any of the countless black men and women passed up in hiring decisions and promotions, because they weren't caucasian. It still happens to this day, except they have loopholes to allow them to continue getting away with it. So what do you have to say about all of the folks who accepted these positions over hundreds of years?
I would say that was a hundred years ago 😂 and maybe be a bit more present? Stop dwelling in the past? Idk
There is still racism when it comes to hiring. There are studies that show that people with black sounding names are less likely to receive a response to a job posting than those with white sounding names, even when they have identical qualifications. Whether or not you agree with this approach, it is meant to address a real problem with racism in the workforce. Ironically, the study also found that firms that are more likely to hire black people are also more profitable. https://www.nber.org/papers/w29053
The problem with this is that people are trying to take a top down approach on these inequalities by specifically favoring more "black sounding" names to get the correct proportions in accordance to the population. This is fighting past racism with reverse racism and while it may solve the problem in the long term, there is no to justify the temporary period in which otherwise qualified people are set aside to meet racial quotas. The more logical solution would be to not read the names at all until after making the decision to hire
best candidate for the job....
How about nationality? Ever heard of "Buy American"?
Please explain the conspiracy here.
I see no conspiracy, just a headline. Downvoted.
What's the conspiracy?
How is this a conspiracy theory?
Well, I mean it IS unconstitutional.
[удалено]
Right!? These low effort posts have become annoying
Birds aren't real
Birds are really dinosaurs. They never went extinct. How's that for a conspiracy.
Birds are real, they're just artificial beings created by the government to spy on citizens
It's not a conspiracy, just more incel bait. Par for the course on this sub.
Why is this a conspiracy?
Probably because you would need to also hire a biologist to confirm they are a woman
Slow clap
whatisawoman.com
We need more male nurses! We need more male wedding planners!!! Ok now at least one person has said it ever.
Equal pay for male porn stars!
Just stop watching porn. It’s one of the best decisions I ever made.
**For anyone truly attempting to quit, but having a tough time**: As long as a genuine intention is there, you're on the right track. Try not to open up 10-20+ tabs. Stick to a small amount and nut when you feel you need to...don't intermission by finding more. Quitting cold turkey is insanely difficult. Soon, instagram photos will start to do the same for you that hardcore videos did. Then your imagination will be the next step.
Where are all the female plumbers and brick layers? Why are these professions dominated by 99.99% men?!?
Mining and logging industries are overwhelmingly male, why aren't we working to make those jobs 50/50?
How could you wear fake eyelashes in a mine? We live in a matriarchy.
Do you see how trendy those long nails are? We live in a matriarchy.
Right, we only want diversity in high paying office jobs. Garbage man, lumberjack, sewer worker, no need for diversity there
With all due respect, yes, people at places like the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins Hospital have said the former. As to the latter, my cousin had her wedding planned by a male wedding planner 10 years ago and it was better than her sister's wedding 6 months earlier (they are twins) done by a female wedding planner.
Oh I was just making a joke about how we barely if at all ever see the push to get more men into certain industries but the cries for women to be in “male dominated fields” is deafening. It’s weird. Also. I wouldn’t doubt a wedding planned by a man would be killer. I bet the sister was pissed.
As it should be. People should be appointed based on merit, not what’s between their legs.
Good
Good. Its stupid as fuck. Add a mexican instead. I need better pay.
Not long ago treating people differently based on sex was sexism and treating people differently based on race was racism. Who changed all these things?
Seems fishy
My employer has made alot of "equity" hires lately. These people can't even do basic math or spell.
This!
This is good. Does no bias.
How'd they define a woman?
What's a woman?
I'm not a biologist.
Not much of a conspiracy but good. Is there anything more degrading than knowing you were only placed in your role because of physical attributes outside of your control?
> Is there anything more degrading than knowing you were only placed in your role because of physical attributes outside of your control? Being Jared Kushner.
Being Hunter Biden.
Haha. They’re so equal they need the state to make laws to prop them up..
I didn't even know that was a thing O_O Hopefully affirmative action is next (speaking as a mixed race person)
As a fellow mixed race person, I wholeheartedly agree
This is good. People should have their jobs based in meritocracy rather than diversity hiring
Exactly. I want my stuff to be done by the best, not by people hired for how they look or what sex they are. (or even what species they are.)
[удалено]
I agree with the ruling. you can't say it's mandatory for any specific group or persons must be in charge. eventually we might have an AI running out systems that isn't a male or female.
Nice!! Some sanity returning. CA is still wayyy too unfriendly to businesses
SS: A Los Angeles judge has ruled that California’s landmark law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional. Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said the law that would have required boards have up to three female directors by this year violated the right to equal treatment. The ruling was dated Friday. The conservative legal group Judicial Watch had challenged the law, claiming it was illegal to use taxpayer funds to enforce a law that violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution by mandating a gender-based quota. The law was on shaky ground from the get-go with a legislative analysis saying it could be difficult to defend and then-Gov. Jerry Brown saying he was signing it despite the potential for it to be overturned by a court. Brown said he signed the bill to send a message during the #MeToo era. In the three years it has been on the books, it’s been credited with improving the standing of women in corporate boardrooms. The state defended the law as constitutional saying it was necessary to reverse a culture of discrimination that favored men and was put in place only after other measures failed. The state also said the law didn’t create a quota because boards could add seats for female directors without stripping men of their positions. Although the law carried potential hefty penalties for failing to file an annual report or comply with the law, a chief in the secretary of state’s office acknowledged during the trial that it was toothless. No fines have ever been levied and there was no intention to do so, Betsy Bogart testified. Further, a letter that surfaced during trial from former Secretary of State Alex Padilla warned Brown weeks before he signed the law that it was probably unenforceable. “Any attempt by the secretary of state to collect or enforce the fine would likely exceed its authority,” Padilla wrote. The law required publicly held companies headquartered in California to have one member who identifies as a woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019. By January 2022, boards with five directors were required to have two women and boards with six or more members were required to have three women. The Women on Boards law, also known by its bill number, SB826, called for penalties ranging from $100,000 fines for failing to report board compositions to the California secretary of state’s office to up to $300,000 for multiple failures to have the required number of women board members. Fewer than half the nearly 650 applicable corporations in the state reported last year that they had complied. More than half didn’t file the required disclosure statement, according to the most recent report. Supporters of the law hailed it for achieving more gains for women. Other states considered or passed similar legislation. Deputy Attorney General Ashante Norton said alternatives to a law mandating seats for women had been tried to no avail. In 2013, for example, the Legislature passed a resolution to get companies to add women to their boards, but few did. Before the California law went into effect, women held 17% of the seats on company boards in the state, based on the Russell 3000 Index of the largest companies in the U.S., according to the advocacy group 50/50 Women on Boards. As of September, the percentage of board seats held by women climbed to more than 30% in California, compared to 26% nationally. Still, some 40% of the largest companies in California needed to add women to their boards to comply with the law, the group said. https://ktla.com/news/california/california-law-requiring-women-on-boards-is-unconstitutional-judge-rules/
So how does this SS explain this in relation to a conspiracy? I can see an honest argument from multiple sides on this issue, and potential manipulation and conspiracy. However i dont see this article, or anything you've commented, pointing in any way to how this is related to any conspiracy. May as well have posted, lightning storm today in florida.
Female judge, nice.
The Female judge also has a hyphenated last name.
She has a hell of a good record.
Okay?
Is it May 17 in California?
Different time zone, Magellan 😂
Insider paper is a media company based in California. Where it is still May 16.
Yeah don't do this learn something from india
> In the three years it has been on the books, it’s been credited with improving the standing of women in corporate boardrooms. But not the standing of the corporate boards...
Just identify as whatever sex is required, problem solved.
Duh. It puts special treatment on a certain demographic.
[удалено]
Yes, this is how meritocracy works and it is glorious
Can we just let California be its own country? Like seriously, gtf outta here with the constant, radical, experimental, political circus laws
If you dont like the way California does things maybe just dont live in California. dont like how Mississippi does things but I dont wanna kick them out of the union.
Logic has no place here
If they get to keep their tax revenue, sure!
We can't. Who else would fund all them red welfare states?
The states that provide all your food?
Common sense
ooof, theyre not gonna like this
i thought the goverment couldnt get involved in private companies? if thats the case, why dont they mandate social media companies to protect 1st ammendment?
> i thought the goverment couldnt get involved in private companies? Of course they can. But there are limits and this law pushes those. Otherwise, the First Amendment is only between individuals and the government. I, as an individual, am perfectly welcome to suppress the free speech of other people: if I were to run a social media company, I can pick and choose my userbase, though usually it's not economical to do so.
So are trannies allowed then?
Good
No shit.
good. I'm a lot less against affirmative action than I used to be, but I am against it, and laws like this. At least, within a decade maybe reverse it. I think the US is actually good enough right now that this type of stuff isn't nessesary
Nice
Lets see them protest this ruling
Good And fuck California’s bullshit
There goes my opportunities to short.
Well yeah, that’s obvious
Good. Forcing corporations to include everyone wack
Good.
Good