In the US 36 million people, about 11 % live in poverty. Another 2 % rely on SNAP and similar aid to keep above the poverty line.
In the US 10 out of 73 million children live in poverty, about twice the rate of your claim.
Also, please link your sources.
That’s not actually how those things go together… how…? Ah, lemmy.ml, explains it
And I’m showing you, with sources, that you are wrong on both your points.
It can be reliably and reproducibly measured that diversity is more profitable. It’s as “always” as tylenol helps against headaches, trains for travel, google for searches, gravity for keeping you on the ground. Yes, there technically are times these don’t work, but it works more often than not, and typically there’s other factors when it doesn’t.
And similarly, yes you might not always pick the best candidate, but applying robustly provable best practices will lead you to doing it more often.
Do you go through anything else in life in this manner? That if you can’t do it perfectly, you’d rather not try? I’d wager not, as trying gets you closer to your goals, even when not meeting them immediately.
It seems evident you’re not giving an informed opinion.
The Trump administration has deemed presentations of employed women and poc as part of DEI.
I find it hard to see that describing your employee diversity is discriminatory. And the law is quite settled on this not being discriminatory. Changes are being forced by executive order, many of which have been illegal under the current administration.
Diversity has repeatedly been shown to be more profitable than homogeneity, in both academic and gray literature. Besides being good for societal cohesion, fairness, stability, happiness, and moral virtue.
The best candidate is indeed best, but there are too narrow and outdated ideas on how to identify the best candidate, and humans have a bias to choose/hire for safety and similarity over actually relevant criteria, which is why we have the problem in the first place.
Please provide proof that this is in use at the PSF.
Quotas for minorities are a very outdated practice and were used to break the most entrenched norms (women in C-suites).
More modern practices include preferring diversity between equally qualified candidates, ad retargeting and messaging efforts, and inclusive norms at workplaces.
Also, diversity is profitable, it increases both innovativeness and productivity. It seems uniquely stupid to kneecap the economy to benefit your cronies. Then again, maybe that’s the whole point of the GOPedo platform: rob the commons.
I’m trying to read your argument generously, and it comes off as: a minority has to work with the enemy to have a chance at achieving some of its goals.
Please correct me, as that doesn’t seem right?
The GOPedo with Trump are still in the popular minority of votes, they haven’t been neither popular majority nor willing to compromise for 50 years.
White Christians aren’t a US minority group, or do you mean that the GOPedo has negotiated with them for the current policies? (With minorities I refer to political minority powers, not necessarily demographics)
Or is it the plurality of voters that should accept working with Trump over Biden to get some of their policy? It would seem that Biden would be the compromise candidate, as Trump doesn’t seem to be pursuing any voter driven policy (health care, jobs, lower inflation, lower cost of living, legalising drugs, etc.), besides perhaps those of further US minorities (Heritage foundation, oligarchs, Saudi Arabia, Russia).
Would you please clarify what you’re arguing for with your picked examples?
Good thing he got replaced, the next one would never do that right?
Oh, he did as well? Well, at least you voted him out when you found out.
Wait, you elected him back? Despite him having done so before just last time, and openly promising to do so again? And the alternative not having done so, nor promising to?
How much could you really care if you’re repeatedly and knowingly going against it?
If it isn’t this and solved by putting a new tank in and letting it run for a bit, it could possibly be an air leakage (usually deforms the flame a bit as well).
Check so nothing is loose and/or damaged, and any rubber without cracks or dry spots.
In point 2. you equate your criticism for liberal democracy with that for the scientific method. Your latest argument doesn’t factually or logically hold true for the scientific method.
Thus I must conclude that a. your arguments for point 1. and 2. are different, and b. your statements are uncorrelated even though they partially argue the same point.
I mean, I guessed as much, but taking them as logically connected made for an entertainingly surprising take, and I thought I’d share it with you and the class.
Read together, it looks like you’re preferring people’s democracy because liberal democracy handles too much nuance.
Hadn’t heard that take before!
What if inflation isn’t about the money losing value, but you having access to more money and thus spending it more frivolously?
Selling my organs, or testing risky medical procedures.
Get leadpilled as the kids would say.
Not in my country, maybe there’s something else going on in yours?
From asking around it seems to vary.
For me it did get my intimate shaving down from every other day to about every 4-5 days, which was too little to justify the pain and hassle.
Some report more difference, others less.
I’m more interested in knowing if this leads to any difference in treatment and reception in the correctional facility. I don’t care if they think they’re making some kind of point going out in drag, it’s functionally indistinguishable from being trans and an excellent point in favor of the law treating people equally, as well as gender being a construct.
I’m guessing being disingenuous is rather going to bite them in corrections, and hope she’ll find a constructive way to approach themselves and society in corrections.
deleted by creator
Wow, this is an exemplary explanation. Being clear with several levels of cultural knowledge as well as the emotional load behind several meanings and juxtapositions, and still comes across with the humor unscathed.
I dream to one day attain such mastery.
Thank you for the clarification.
I’d say the semantics arguments come from countering religions’ manipulative perversion of language.
Many religions use tricky language to confuse, conflate and abuse. One such example is that Christian apologists have conflated atheist with heretic for the better part of two millennia. Which is of course absurd, as most Christians are atheist towards Hindu gods, and are thus definitionally more atheist than Hindus.
Yet atheist/heretic/apostate remains as a dirty label, and includes judgement of character, and in many parts of the world persecution or lesser worth.
Reclaiming the word serves in part to actually give it usefulness beyond a boogeyman, to allow for discussions on fundamentals of belief, epistemology, and the contrast of belief vs reasons vs knowableness.
It also helps bridge some of the damage religion has done. When religious people get some nuance to the boogeyman term, they typically are more open to seeing the human cost of stereotyping and shunning people because of that label.
Other perverted terms common to religious trauma are gnosticism (ofc), but also love, grief, acceptance, morality and righteousness.
Things that us having to break free from religion all had to relearn the hard way, and typically while hiding from our still religious close ones.
Then you’re lacking in imagination.
Similar data have outed people’s pregnancies, relationships and locations, which has been used to let people be stalked and even murdered.
Car data can be sold and amalgamated to create a very precise profile of you, available to be purchased by anyone. Anyone with about $100 can purchase access to your daily/weekly schedule, including physical locations, and can easily steal your identity, if not rob or murder you.
Also, foreign propaganda can similarly profile you and hyper target influence campaigns.