Warbler said:
I was just looking for the best accountant.
Exactly. And a good process can help ensure that unseen biases don’t get in the way of that goal.
BTW, the questions in my last post weren’t meant to be answered. They were rhetorical examples and the answers could be different depending on the situation. Thanks, this was a better discussion this time.
Meaning you’ve got biases that have been installed into you by decades of exposure to racist media, housing policies, schools, family, friends, etc. It’s a nice way of saying you’re racist, but using the broad definition that includes pretty much all Americans, and doesn’t mean you’re actively trying to perpetuate these things.
*sigh* 😐
For Christ’s sake.
Warbler has shown nothing that would make you think he is racist and to assume that someone is racist without any evidence is just awful. Half of this race talk is just virtue signaling from the left and does nothing to help solve issues in America.
Umm, I think the link was intended to criticize CatBus for calling Warbler racist. The video points out that we are all capable of occasionally doing a racist act, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we are a racist person.
Thanks for the clear up. Catbus, my last message was directed at you and every other self righteous asshole from the left.
I called pretty much all Americans racists in the sense that they are all tainted by growing up with racism, and should that into consideration when making decisions, and I included myself (and women, and minorities) in that. Self-righteous refers to someone who thinks they’re better than other people, not someone who thinks they’re equally culpable. Nevertheless, through this discussion, we have successfully identified a self-righteous asshole.
Never said I was better than you Mr. All Americans are Racist. Fuck off.
Shoulda posted the middle finger pic.
Yeah, I got that one last time (sorta).
It’s why I dropped out last time!
Meaning you’ve got biases that have been installed into you by decades of exposure to racist media, housing policies, schools, family, friends, etc. It’s a nice way of saying you’re racist, but using the broad definition that includes pretty much all Americans, and doesn’t mean you’re actively trying to perpetuate these things.
*sigh* 😐
For Christ’s sake.
Warbler has shown nothing that would make you think he is racist and to assume that someone is racist without any evidence is just awful. Half of this race talk is just virtue signaling from the left and does nothing to help solve issues in America.
Umm, I think the link was intended to criticize CatBus for calling Warbler racist. The video points out that we are all capable of occasionally doing a racist act, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we are a racist person.
For those that don’t like the term colorblind:
If I were the boss of a company looking to hire an accountant, what would be wrong in being colorblind in my choice?
Nothing, it would be great. But how exactly are you going to achieve that?
By not being racist? Deciding to analyze them based upon their merit?
And this is verified how?
what do you mean?
I said I’d bail out of this discussion, but I’ll reiterate my point just this one time…
The whole “I’m color-blind” thing is supposedly an answer to charges of racism. But it’s circular logic. Being “not racist” and being “color-blind” is the same thing. I can say that I’m not racist, or I can say that I’m color-blind, but why should someone who has been oppressed believe me – just because I say so? I might not even know, because a lot of such things are subconscious. Do you think the Google guy who wrote the manifesto is color-blind? I bet he thinks he is.
Also, if I’m the CEO of some giant company, I may have to delegate the hiring process to senior employees below me. Even if I honestly want the hiring process to be “color-blind”, how am I going to guarantee that happens? How can I verify that my employees acted in a color-blind way? By accepting that it’s true if they say so? There generally need to be processes in place to ensure it is systemic and verifiable. Otherwise nobody would have any reason to believe it - it’s just words. It also wouldn’t hold up in court.
Being color-blind is an awesome goal, but again, just claiming that it’s so, isn’t compelling at all.
So just what the heck would you suggest then?
That was my question to you! I didn’t claim to be the expert.
Well below you claim to be a more of an expert than I am.
I most certainly did not. Please tell me where I stated that. I have no idea if I am more expert than you. I was merely stating my background.
That said, I have served over the past year as my department’s equal opportunity representative in hiring of faculty. For this, I had to go through a lot of training. So I know SOME things about the subject - and, like most things, the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know.
You say there’s not much we can do except try the best we can – well that’s NOT TRUE at all. There is a LOT that can and is being done. And it starts by educating oneself on potential sources of hidden bias, and trying to avoid them. One simple example of something to be wary of, is trying to decide how well a candidate will “fit in”. That is pervasive in many hiring situations, and often leads to racial and gender bias, without the interviewers even realizing it.
So I shouldn’t worry about how well the applicant would fit in with the others?
I didn’t say that either. I said that it is something to be wary of. It is quite possible that years of hiring people who are perceived to “fit in” can lead to a homogenous group of people who only hire people like them. It’s something to actively watch for, not ignore.
Another is to replace the mindset of trying to ignore race/gender, with instead educating oneself about issues and situations that could arise in an interview.
other than the pregnant woman, what situations do you men?
Are the requirements/priorities for the position clearly identified beforehand? How are candidates going to be assessed - for instance, if a priority is “works well in a team”, it wouldn’t be wise to just go with a gut feeling. What if someone on the search committee is uncomfortable with what another search committee member said (happened once to us!) - is there any sort of understanding for how potential issues of bias can be raised and addressed within the committee?
Here’s an example of something we changed in our department: Hiring is a serious effort (pain-in-the-neck, actually), and we much prefer to hire people who are likely to stay. As a result, we had a habit of trying to second-guess which candidates we believed were likely to stay, and which were likely to leave after a few years. We learned that this can lead to bias, since it led to us preferring candidates with families (“grounded!”), candidates who would feel “at home” in the surrounding neighborhoods, etc.
Here’s another issue… where are you announcing the job opening? Some demographics are going to look in different resources than where we were listing. Furthermore, our failing to list a position in a certain periodical, can lead a potential candidate to believe we might not be welcoming to his/her type.
That is, actively trying to identify patterns ahead of time that can lead to bias, rather than trying to avoid the issue and assume that by being “blind”, it won’t happen. That leads to “winging it”… it’s better to be prepared. For a simple example, suppose a candidate shows up and she’s obviously eight months pregnant? What are you going to do? You should be prepared for that possibility, and many others.
So I shouldn’t be concerned at all that if I hire this person, she is going to need a leave of absence soon?
I didn’t say that either - but it does sound like you haven’t thought it out yet. That was the point - be prepared, don’t avoid the issue(s). You’re looking for pat, simple answers where there aren’t any.
You’re also putting a lot of words in my mouth, but that’s not really relevant.
A comment I saw on Yahoo: “If Trump really wants to destroy North Korea, he should simply purchase it. That will ultimately guarantee its demise.” 😃
For those that don’t like the term colorblind:
If I were the boss of a company looking to hire an accountant, what would be wrong in being colorblind in my choice?
Nothing, it would be great. But how exactly are you going to achieve that?
By not being racist? Deciding to analyze them based upon their merit?
And this is verified how?
what do you mean?
I said I’d bail out of this discussion, but I’ll reiterate my point just this one time…
The whole “I’m color-blind” thing is supposedly an answer to charges of racism. But it’s circular logic. Being “not racist” and being “color-blind” is the same thing. I can say that I’m not racist, or I can say that I’m color-blind, but why should someone who has been oppressed believe me – just because I say so? I might not even know, because a lot of such things are subconscious. Do you think the Google guy who wrote the manifesto is color-blind? I bet he thinks he is.
Also, if I’m the CEO of some giant company, I may have to delegate the hiring process to senior employees below me. Even if I honestly want the hiring process to be “color-blind”, how am I going to guarantee that happens? How can I verify that my employees acted in a color-blind way? By accepting that it’s true if they say so? There generally need to be processes in place to ensure it is systemic and verifiable. Otherwise nobody would have any reason to believe it - it’s just words. It also wouldn’t hold up in court.
Being color-blind is an awesome goal, but again, just claiming that it’s so, isn’t compelling at all.
So just what the heck would you suggest then?
That was my question to you! I didn’t claim to be the expert.
That said, I have served over the past year as my department’s equal opportunity representative in hiring of faculty. For this, I had to go through a lot of training. So I know SOME things about the subject - and, like most things, the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know.
You say there’s not much we can do except try the best we can – well that’s NOT TRUE at all. There is a LOT that can and is being done. And it starts by educating oneself on potential sources of hidden bias, and trying to avoid them. One simple example of something to be wary of, is trying to decide how well a candidate will “fit in”. That is pervasive in many hiring situations, and often leads to racial and gender bias, without the interviewers even realizing it.
Another is to replace the mindset of trying to ignore race/gender, with instead educating oneself about issues and situations that could arise in an interview. That is, actively trying to identify patterns ahead of time that can lead to bias, rather than trying to avoid the issue and assume that by being “blind”, it won’t happen. That leads to “winging it”… it’s better to be prepared. For a simple example, suppose a candidate shows up and she’s obviously eight months pregnant? What are you going to do? You should be prepared for that possibility, and many others.
I had never considered our department’s practices biased at all. But after going through the training, it was clear that some of our procedures needed to change. I’m sure I have a lot more to learn as time goes on.
For those that don’t like the term colorblind:
If I were the boss of a company looking to hire an accountant, what would be wrong in being colorblind in my choice?
Nothing, it would be great. But how exactly are you going to achieve that?
By not being racist? Deciding to analyze them based upon their merit?
And this is verified how?
what do you mean?
I said I’d bail out of this discussion, but I’ll reiterate my point just this one time…
The whole “I’m color-blind” thing is supposedly an answer to charges of racism. But it’s circular logic. Being “not racist” and being “color-blind” is the same thing. I can say that I’m not racist, or I can say that I’m color-blind, but why should someone who has been oppressed believe me – just because I say so? I might not even know, because a lot of such things are subconscious. Do you think the Google guy who wrote the manifesto is color-blind? I bet he thinks he is.
Also, if I’m the CEO of some giant company, I may have to delegate the hiring process to senior employees below me. Even if I honestly want the hiring process to be “color-blind”, how am I going to guarantee that happens? How can I verify that my employees acted in a color-blind way? By accepting that it’s true if they say so? There generally need to be processes in place to ensure it is systemic and verifiable. Otherwise nobody would have any reason to believe it - it’s just words. It also wouldn’t hold up in court.
Being color-blind is an awesome goal, but again, just claiming that it’s so, isn’t compelling at all.
For those that don’t like the term colorblind:
If I were the boss of a company looking to hire an accountant, what would be wrong in being colorblind in my choice?
Nothing, it would be great. But how exactly are you going to achieve that?
By not being racist? Deciding to analyze them based upon their merit?
And this is verified how?
For those that don’t like the term colorblind:
If I were the boss of a company looking to hire an accountant, what would be wrong in being colorblind in my choice?
Nothing, it would be great. But how exactly are you going to achieve that?
There are those who favor the abolition of all guns in the hands of the public (and I believe–correct me if I’m wrong–that Warbler is part of this crowd)
I’m sure I want a total ban or not. Perhaps a ban on auto and semi-auto rifles might be enough, or maybe a ban on all auto and semi-auto weapons. At the very least, I think a lot more training and psychological testing should be required before being allowed to own firearms. I also think maybe one shouldn’t allowed to own firearms if they live with someone with dangerous mental issues or if they live with someone who has a criminal record.
Screw semi-auto, I’m for a full-on handgun ban. Plus auto and semi-auto. Plus ammunition. Sure it’s unconstitutional, I’m for repeal.
If you want to ban semi-auto’s, then I always press the question of why not just ban handguns too since they kill more people in the U.S. every year than semi’s?
In my opinion, because the purpose of a handgun is local, personal combat or defense. Whereas, the purpose of auto and semi-autos is to kill lots of people. When is there EVER any need for the latter among the general populace? And the argument that people should have a right to them for entertainment is bogus, because entertainment has nothing to do with a militia.
On another note, in my opinion, the argument that if guns are illegal, then only the criminals would have guns ignores the fact that if guns were illegal, the demand would be much lower and therefore so would the manufacture. Today any two-bit criminal can get a gun partly because are so many of them. I would hazard a guess that this is one reason most other countries have less gun-related crime than we do; you can’t just walk down the street and get one because there simply aren’t enough of them to go around. Again, just my opinions.
When I asked my Trump-voting friends “why?”, their answers were universally twofold: (1) how could I possibly vote for a murderer, and (2) what was so great about Obama? That tells me that negative campaigning is extremely effective, even when it is ridiculous. And, that one can say truly horrible things and that will actually appeal to a lot of people… even a lot of nice people. It’s why the election really has made me question what I thought the American people and the American system as a whole really are.
I am pro-choice. My reason is that nobody KNOWS at what point during development a fetus becomes a person. Science/medicine haven’t been able to answer that question definitively. Yes many people believe it is at the time of conception, but since that is just a belief, it amounts to a form of religion. Because those aspects of the fetus that a reasonable person would consider to indicate personhood (viability, physical developments, brain activity, etc) become increasingly evident over the course of development, I favor a sliding scale where restrictions on abortion increase over time in the womb.
Making abortion illegal in the first trimester thus, for example, seems to me a sort of religious decree, and not an appropriate legal mandate. It also has terrible personal and societal consequences.
Glen Campbell was a musical genius, and one of the greatest guitarists ever.
Now that’s a difficult question. It’s complicated.
Tell me. And remember, this is for posterity, so be honest — how do you feel?
I’m feeling much better today Dave.
It’s true, I haven’t seen any “moderate” clickbait memes.
Now that’s a difficult question. It’s complicated.
Just a quick note to say that reels 2 and 3 are 100% done. Reel 1 is almost done… reviewing my encoding revealed a couple of necessary tweaks that should take me 2-3 hours. I’m out of town until Friday, so I will do these over the weekend.
I’m much happier now with how it’s turning out… this final version is really fun to watch. Reel 1 has been a bear, but I’m satisfied with how it looks now. The doc will explain everything in gory detail. The remaining tweaks are just to remove a couple of mouse droppings that I find overly distracting.
Since longtime readers have seen my picture, and Puggo trilogy fans have heard my voice, there shouldn’t be too much ambiguity here.
I think the reason Zuckerberg could be a candidate despite his being inexperienced like Trump, is that many think that one of Trump’s main problems is that he isn’t smart, whereas Zuckerberg is. At this point, I don’t think people are bemoaning Trump’s lack of experience… that’s the least of his issues.
I’ve met many people who don’t know anything about Star Trek, including my wife. And even more people who hadn’t seen Star Wars. And even more people who have never heard of Doctor Who. Heck, I’ve met one person who hadn’t even heard of Jesus Christ… thought “B.C.” stood for “before the crisis”. Not everyone thinks that Doctor Who is as big a deal as us nerds do.
Warbler said:
2. He still came back and played the role in The Force Awakens. Eccleston did not come back, to the detriment of the 50th Anniversary Show.
I cannot imagine that the pay scales are remotely comparable.
Yeah, it’s more than just a TV show, but the actors are professionals and cannot be expected to serve in any capacity whatsoever after their contract is up. It’s nice when they participate, but how many SW conventions has Harrison Ford attended? One in 40 years? The actors are people and each have their own lives, priorities, and work/family schedules.
I am not understanding why this series seems to be so controversial and the Nazi show is not.
There are a LOT of people who, rightly or wrongly, consider the south/confederates to have been the good guys, and are no doubt worried that that they will be portrayed negatively. Virtually nobody thinks the Nazis were good, so there’s nobody around to worry about them being portrayed in a negative light.
I haven’t started the doc yet, because when I started working on it, I realized that I can’t until I know which encode I’ve decided on.
Ok, that’s done. Re-tweaking a few things in each reel now. The encodes have so many tweaks now, that I expect about a day of computer time to render and encode, per reel. The computer is hard at work rendering reel 2 right now (I’m doing 2, then 3, then 1). So realistically, I should be able to start working on the doc late this week, or this coming weekend.
It’s turning out a bit better than I had expected. It’s also more work than I had expected 😃