A "Quiet Shift Toward Doubters" the RNS & Tribune Reports

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

probably shouldn't participate in this conversation but I can't resist

I know the feeling.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

I probably shouldn't participate in this conversation but I can't resist. I'm just going to leave this 2 minute clip here. First half is Charlie Kirk defending himself about DEI hires and black pilots, second half is Jamie Foxx talking about black pilots.

 

Yeah, Kirk digs himself deeper into it again because he states without documentation or any support that racial quotas lower standards.   And this is why the perception the Black pilot is less trained exists in his view if I understand him correctly….meaning there are Black pilots who received less rigorous training due to the lowering standards (wouldn’t this be a problem for white pilots as well, at least newer ones, if standards were lowered across the board?).  Haven’t read anything yet beyond declarations without support such as his and plenty of other supported claims that retire him, so at this point I say he is sharing a falsehood as if it was truth and given how often I have seen him share it now, I suspect he’s been confronted by evidence refuting it, so it raises it to deception for me.  Foxx emphasized it being perception, but did not say that the perception was caused by the actual lowering of standards.  He may think that and if he does, he is as wrong as Kirk imo and him being Black and saying it doesn’t make it any less true.

And while it might be true that standards to get into some pilot schools have been dropped to attract more applicants, it is the shortage of pilots over all that is the cause (apparently due to not wanting to to pay salaries of grounded due to Covid restrictions pilots for unknown length of time, many senior pilots were offered and took early retirement packages).  Plus just because it was easier to get into the school doesn’t mean it is easier to get the license to fly for an airline.

I am relying on AI here, but if you require something more credible, I will look for it.  The question was “what changes have occurred to airline pilot qualifications over the years” and it looks like qualifications have generally become stricter this century, not less.  The only lowering of standard mentioned was many airlines no longer require a four year degree.  My guess is most don’t think that is relevant.  They would prefer more hours in the cockpit to hours in a college classroom learning history or how to write a literature review.

Quote

 

Airline pilot qualifications have increased significantly, especially after a 2013 FAA rule mandated an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate for first officers, requiring 1,500 flight hours, a major jump from previous commercial pilot requirements. Key changes include higher flight hour requirements, a greater emphasis on specific training in complex or technically advanced aircraft, and the recent removal of degree requirements by some airlines, though others still require them. Pilots also face ongoing training and periodic physical and flight exams to maintain their certificates and proficiency. 

 

Historical Context

• Mid-20th Century: 

  Qualifications were less stringent, with pilots often progressing from roles like flight engineers or mechanics to airline cockpit positions, sometimes with 5,000 or more hours of flight experience. 

   
• Pre-2013: 

  A commercial pilot's license was often sufficient for a first officer position on a scheduled commercial airliner. 

   

Major Qualification Changes

• 1,500-Hour ATP Requirement (2013):

  • The FAA's 2013 regulation requires a full ATP certificate for all first officers in commercial airline operations. 
     
  • This significantly increased the required flight experience, up from potentially a commercial pilot's license with far fewer hours. 
     
  • Restricted-privileges ATP (R-ATP) certificates allow pilots with less than 1,500 hours to serve as a second in command, but specific academic or military training can reduce the hours needed. 
     
• Modern Training Requirements:

  • Pilots must log extensive flight experience, which includes specific hours in complex or technically advanced aircraft. 
     
  • Instrument ratings, which permit flying in low-visibility conditions, are a core requirement for commercial pilots. 
     

 

Edited October 10, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

But let's point out the obvious that hasn't been discussed.

DEI is demonstrably good for business. Businesses who use DEI as a tool generally do better than those that don't. Studies like this one, or this one, or this one, or this one. There are lots of others. The problem that we have here is that this other narrative - that questions competency of individuals is a way of ignoring some of the real reasons why corporations engage in DEI - it is good for business. The idea of highlighting pilots is itself a way of turning the narrative away from the evidence based research that consistent and managed application of DEI creates better businesses. There is a reason why, when questions of DEI are put to shareholders that anti-DEI proposals are overwhelmingly defeated. Even in situations where DEI is poorly managed and superficial, there isn't any evidence to support any decline in the business. To me, this generally points out that when we have individuals or groups who focus on this sort of engagement (do we really want a DEI pilot flying a plane), what we really have is an emotional attack on DEI that isn't actually supported by any data at all. This approach is necessary because of the failure of studies to consistently provide real evidence of the failure of DEI. And let's be realistic. If it isn't about gender and race, it would be easy enough to include in DEI statistical quotas for white men. Let's create that target and make sure that we are meeting it, right? But this is never offered as a solution for those who are anti-DEI. Why? Because the anti-DEI voice is still trying to paint the narrative that the sole purpose of DEI is to correct alleged historic inequalities. And because it exists to correct these historic inequalities, that there is a societal willingness to pay a price (in terms of poor qualifications or performance) to balance out that history. Reality shows that this isn't the case. In the minds of many anti-DEI proponents, if we simply make it a meritocracy - one that completely ignores gender and race - the expectation is that white men will be the most deserving group for all of the most significant jobs and roles.

So to have this sort of one sided discussion isn't actually some sort of evidence of having a neutral stance. It is its own form of bigotry. I think that if we were serious about addressing historic inequality we would stop trying to address symptoms and instead correct the underlying problems. Let's have free preschool. Let's have free four years of college. Let's educate everyone. If we can create real equity in education, then we wouldn't have this debate over merit and hiring, and we could see DEI as the valuable tool that it is for building successful business.

[JVW]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Yeah, Kirk digs himself deeper into it again because he states without documentation or any support that racial quotas lower standards.   And this is why the perception the Black pilot is less trained exists in his view if I understand him correctly….meaning there are Black pilots who received less rigorous training due to the lowering standards (wouldn’t this be a problem for white pilots as well, at least newer ones, if standards were lowered across the board?).  Haven’t read anything yet beyond declarations without support such as his and plenty of other supported claims that retire him, so at this point I say he is sharing a falsehood as if it was truth and given how often I have seen him share it now, I suspect he’s been confronted by evidence refuting it, so it raises it to deception for me.  Foxx emphasized it being perception, but did not say that the perception was caused by the actual lowering of standards.  He may think that and if he does, he is as wrong as Kirk imo and him being Black and saying it doesn’t make it any less true.

And while it might be true that standards to get into some pilot schools have been dropped to attract more applicants, it is the shortage of pilots over all that is the cause (apparently due to not wanting to to pay salaries of grounded due to Covid restrictions pilots for unknown length of time, many senior pilots were offered and took early retirement packages).  Plus just because it was easier to get into the school doesn’t mean it is easier to get the license to fly for an airline.

I am relying on AI here, but if you require something more credible, I will look for it.  The question was “what changes have occurred to airline pilot qualifications over the years” and it looks like qualifications have generally become stricter this century, not less.  The only lowering of standard mentioned was many airlines no longer require a four year degree.  My guess is most don’t think that is relevant.  They would prefer more hours in the cockpit to hours in a college classroom learning history or how to write a literature review.

 

My favorite part of the video was reading the back and forth arguments in the comments section. After digesting what I read here is what I currently think about DEI stuff.

Does it have a negative impact on the airline pilot industry? No. It's just a way to get more minority type people into flight school programs, but they all have to put in the same amount of flight hours and stuff.

Do I disagree with DEI at a fundamental level? Yes and no. I assume the worst out of businesses: nepotism, favoritism, etc. So unless there is a law to force certain hiring behavior then I expect a business will do the most shady thing possible in their hiring practices. I don't know how DEI is setup but I imagine it is not like how I would set it up. I would have DEI handled at the state or city level, not the federal level. And I'd have each state or city have DEI hiring practices reflect their demographic. So if a state is 5% black then DEI is 5% black. If it's 5% white, then DEI is 5% white. That only applies for race, not for gender, because, depending on the industry, women don't want to work there and vice versa. I do not want to see a 50% male childcare employment rate. I think men are going to abuse my kids, call me sexist. And I don't expect 50% of people who install solar to be women.

My favorite comment that gave me pause for consideration as far as skill vs quota was this. Would DEI work to enhance the NBA? If there was a quota for NBA or NFL to be 50% white, would that improve the quality of athletes in the sport? Call me racist, but I don't think it would. I think there's a reason that sports are largely black and it's because they have rigorous drafting procedures and pipelines to ensure that the best athletes rise to the top and get hired, and they have a large financial incentive to make sure their team gets the best players.

So, as with anything else, DEI appears to be a mixed bag, it has been fun to think about this topic which I frankly had forgotten about since university like 15 years ago.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But let's point out the obvious that hasn't been discussed.

DEI is demonstrably good for business. Businesses who use DEI as a tool generally do better than those that don't. Studies like this one, or this one, or this one, or this one. There are lots of others. The problem that we have here is that this other narrative - that questions competency of individuals is a way of ignoring some of the real reasons why corporations engage in DEI - it is good for business. The idea of highlighting pilots is itself a way of turning the narrative away from the evidence based research that consistent and managed application of DEI creates better businesses. There is a reason why, when questions of DEI are put to shareholders that anti-DEI proposals are overwhelmingly defeated. Even in situations where DEI is poorly managed and superficial, there isn't any evidence to support any decline in the business. To me, this generally points out that when we have individuals or groups who focus on this sort of engagement (do we really want a DEI pilot flying a plane), what we really have is an emotional attack on DEI that isn't actually supported by any data at all. This approach is necessary because of the failure of studies to consistently provide real evidence of the failure of DEI. And let's be realistic. If it isn't about gender and race, it would be easy enough to include in DEI statistical quotas for white men. Let's create that target and make sure that we are meeting it, right? But this is never offered as a solution for those who are anti-DEI. Why? Because the anti-DEI voice is still trying to paint the narrative that the sole purpose of DEI is to correct alleged historic inequalities. And because it exists to correct these historic inequalities, that there is a societal willingness to pay a price (in terms of poor qualifications or performance) to balance out that history. Reality shows that this isn't the case. In the minds of many anti-DEI proponents, if we simply make it a meritocracy - one that completely ignores gender and race - the expectation is that white men will be the most deserving group for all of the most significant jobs and roles.

So to have this sort of one sided discussion isn't actually some sort of evidence of having a neutral stance. It is its own form of bigotry. I think that if we were serious about addressing historic inequality we would stop trying to address symptoms and instead correct the underlying problems. Let's have free preschool. Let's have free four years of college. Let's educate everyone. If we can create real equity in education, then we wouldn't have this debate over merit and hiring, and we could see DEI as the valuable tool that it is for building successful business.

Yes, if it were all one color, the world is bland.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Do I disagree with DEI at a fundamental level? Yes and no. I assume the worst out of businesses: nepotism, favoritism, etc. So unless there is a law to force certain hiring behavior then I expect a business will do the most shady thing possible in their hiring practices. I don't know how DEI is setup but I imagine it is not like how I would set it up. I would have DEI handled at the state or city level, not the federal level. And I'd have each state or city have DEI hiring practices reflect their demographic. So if a state is 5% black then DEI is 5% black. If it's 5% white, then DEI is 5% white. That only applies for race, not for gender, because, depending on the industry, women don't want to work there and vice versa. I do not want to see a 50% male childcare employment rate. I think men are going to abuse my kids, call me sexist. And I don't expect 50% of people who install solar to be women.

Generally speaking, there are no DEI laws. Governments can direct governmental agencies to use DEI principles when hiring, but, government generally cannot dictate how companies hire. We do have laws about discrimination that can affect hiring practices - but in general, these are only applicable in terms of dealing with why someone isn't hired. Current battlegrounds occur when there are DEI programs that intersect with federal or state funding - with college applicants, for example. The funding can then be used as a way to influence whether these programs exist. For corporations there isn't anything that the government can do. With privately owned corporations, there is an even greater level of security against interference. The big battle ground this year was efforts to threaten publicly traded corporations to get them to drop or reduce their DEI programs. Dozens of major publicly traded companies this year saw attempts to convince shareholders to vote for the removal of DEI programs. When shareholders voted on these efforts, they all failed - and the votes weren't even close - Costco saw a vote of 98-2, Apple was 97-3 and Coca-Cola was 99-1. Coca-Cola in particular made the statement that it's personnel policies looked to mirror the communities they serve (much as you suggest above). These policies are generally seen as good for business when they are given strong corporate support and are implemented effectively.

I will say, for the record, that I think that the way that you represent gender and industry does have sexist components - I don't think that gender is the issue you suggest it is. At the same time, I think that generally speaking, there are certain industries that have much higher representation with certain genders. I work in one of them (healthcare). Men are a distinct minority in my workplace. I think that there are a host of issues which make these types of disparity higher than they ought to be. This includes a public perception related to what jobs should be considered a woman's job or a man's job.

2 hours ago, JVW said:

My favorite comment that gave me pause for consideration as far as skill vs quota was this. Would DEI work to enhance the NBA? If there was a quota for NBA or NFL to be 50% white, would that improve the quality of athletes in the sport? Call me racist, but I don't think it would. I think there's a reason that sports are largely black and it's because they have rigorous drafting procedures and pipelines to ensure that the best athletes rise to the top and get hired, and they have a large financial incentive to make sure their team gets the best players.

Again, this is more of a emotional argument than anything that represents reality. DEI works in a lot of different ways - but it doesn't generally change the job requirements. The NBA is never going to hire women as professional basketball players in the NBA. However, the NBA does have a strong DEI program. Only about 10 percent of employees of the NBA are athletes. That leaves a lot of jobs where this isn't an issue. Of course, from a different point of view, MLB is roughly opposite the NBA in terms of athlete diversity. I am sure, if we wanted to grow a more diverse pool of athletes, we would need to do so by creating more opportunities much earlier in the process. Percentages of professional players tend to follow a pattern created by college players. But colleges don't generally represent the same player base that we see in high schools. It isn't just about skills - its also about opportunities. It is an interesting factoid that of young participants in equestrian sports, 99% are white. I think that if there is a reason why DEI programs struggle it is because the loss of opportunity for minorities doesn't begin in college or in the workforce, but much earlier in childhood opportunities. And in that context, it is more a function of government than it is private organizations and their policies.

2 hours ago, JVW said:

So, as with anything else, DEI appears to be a mixed bag, it has been fun to think about this topic which I frankly had forgotten about since university like 15 years ago.

I think it is much less of a mixed bag than you do.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/9/2025 at 3:07 PM, The Nehor said:

Mostly below their radar. There aren’t enough Mormons to be a problem.

Pres. Nelson had earned some sort of respect from the CCP, and our missionaries in Europe actually converted a lot Chinese students.  Yes, they are quiescent.

On 10/9/2025 at 3:07 PM, The Nehor said:

I am pretty sure that article of faith has a bunch of provisos on it. The history of the faith is not one of strict adherence to the law and submission to lawful authority. Sometimes it happened. Other times it did not.

So you don't include Mormons in the nebish category?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/10/2025 at 6:25 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

.................. In the minds of many anti-DEI proponents, if we simply make it a meritocracy - one that completely ignores gender and race - the expectation is that white men will be the most deserving group for all of the most significant jobs and roles.

........................

Nonsense, the true expectation is that Asians and Jews will predominate, and Marxist Harvard (for example) has done everything possible to prevent that catastrophe.  As to "men," again nonsense.  Two-thirds of university students are women.  So-called "white men" are being systematically excluded due their toxic taint.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/9/2025 at 3:36 PM, Calm said:

The widespread corruption in the CCP seems like it wouldn’t lend itself well to such an approach.  A significant purge of officials and leaders would be needed first, imo, to “easily adopt” such an approach.

Plus if Chinese entertainment is any sign of their society’s desires, the Chinese want to be rich and get special treatment just like most of the rest of the world.

True enough, but the CCP is a top-down organization.  Corruption actually gets things done just as it does in a mafia family.  Xi is losing power, and the new order might shift back to special privilege for those who follow power Machiavelli style -- including imposition of some new order.  The dictatorship of the proletariat is, after all, merely the new class.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Two-thirds of university students are women.  So-called "white men" are being systematically excluded due their toxic taint.

And yet male graduates are still getting paid more, though the gap is smaller than it used to be, for comparable jobs while pay is typically lower for female dominated majors, etc.

 

Asian Americans are less likely to be accepted than comparable whites:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04449?

And male applicants are at times favored over females:

https://www.ivycoach.com/press/best-colleges/heres-what-students-should-know-about-gender-inequity-in-selective-college-admissions/

Quote

So colleges have a “men problem.” As such, to manifest a more equal gender balance on campus, some colleges favor male applicants. Simply being male can amount to a “thumb on the scale for men,” a 2023 New York Times Magazine exposé revealed.

When an attempt to rebalance the gender profile meets an applicant pool consisting largely of women, who on average apply to more schools than men, the result can be acceptance rates tipped heavily in favor of males.

This phenomenon occurs across U.S. higher education, but is it happening at highly selective universities, where huge applicant pools and strong yield rates enable institutions to more carefully shape an incoming class?

At some schools, yes. Men applying to Brown University have a 39% better chance of getting admitted than women. At the University of Chicago, that advantage is 30%.

Maria Laskaris, a senior private counselor at Top Tier Admissions, has been aware of this situation for some time.

She attended Dartmouth College around the time the school went co-ed and ramped up its efforts to attract women. Later, when Laskaris was an admissions director at Dartmouth, the college was experiencing the “last vestiges of change” from an all-male institution and still trying to recruit more female applicants.

A recent conversation with a high-achieving student prompted Laskaris to dig into data submitted to the Common Data Set to determine just how much of an advantage one’s gender confers.

“It’s what I had suspected — that there are schools very aggressively shaping the way they admit students in order to meet their enrollment objectives, which in this case is trying to get as close as possible to a 50-50 ratio of men and women,” Laskaris told BestColleges.

Let’s take a closer look at Brown, where the male bias is rather pronounced.

In fall 2023, 19,666 men applied, and 31,650 women applied. The acceptance rate for men was 6.8%; for women, it was 4.2%. Both genders yielded at roughly the same rate (around 63%), resulting in an incoming class of 846 men and 849 women.

And it seems one of the main reason white males don’t go to or finish college is because they don’t see a need to do so for the job they want.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/08/whats-behind-the-growing-gap-between-men-and-women-in-college-completion/

Males also have an advantage in being automatically higher rated in the male dominated, higher paying jobs (studies of identical resumes given male or female names).  Women have an advantage for lower paying, female dominated fields.  

https://isps.yale.edu/research/publications/isps23-18?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Added:  this doesn’t break it down by sex, but whites pretty much tie with Asians for the lowest unemployment rates at 3.6 and 3.5%. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/237917/us-unemployment-rate-by-race-and-ethnicity/

This set of stats have white men and women fluctuating on who has the lower rate, so it seems on average to be quite close.  Also have Asians doing the same.  So again, white males are in the groups with lowest unemployment rates on average.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

When white males are no longer dominant in numbers in the highest paid salary groups and have higher unemployment stats than other groups, I think I will find such concerns better founded.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/02/women-have-gained-ground-in-the-nations-highest-paying-occupations-but-still-lag-behind-men/

Having said that, we should be making sure our kids, both male and female, have better life skills taught—which include learning how to study effectively so they can best make use of educational opportunities as well as critical thinking skills that can serve them in their education and nonacademic life—in public funded school imo if the purpose is to turn them into producing, functional, independent citizens.  That requires investment not only in research to find the best teaching methods for all involved, whatever neurodiversity they might have regardless of ethnicity, religion, sex, etc., but also kids’ health (which translates for me to moving school to start no earlier than 9 as well as providing nutritious meals, especially for those who don’t get them at home for whatever reason, making physical activity part of every school day, and basic checkups and don’t forget maternal healthcare prenatally and early years so babies and preschoolers maximize their health as well….early preventative health care means less costly healthcare as they age).  Invest early to reap the financial and social benefits of a citizenship that can work well and wants to.

Edited October 12, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Editing is screwed up….anyone else having slowed down loading up times and lack of saving response?

AI isn’t helping as white, male names are generally preferred.

Quote

The results of the research showed clear evidence of significant discrimination based on gender, racial identities, and their intersections. Out of 27 tests for discrimination across three LLMs and nine occupations, gender bias was evident: Men’s and women’s names were selected at equal rates in only 37% of cases. In the rest, resumes with men’s names were favored 51.9% of the time, while women’s names were favored just 11.1% of the time. Racial bias was even more pronounced—resumes with Black- and white-associated names were selected at equal rates in only 6.3% of tests. White-associated names were preferred in 85.1% of cases, while Black-associated names led in just 8.6%. Disparities in resume selections did not necessarily correlate with existing disparities in workforce employment for gender or race, suggesting that using AI screening mechanisms could either alter or increase disparities in sectors and occupations where they do not already exist.  

While these results offer evidence for significant differences based on single axes of identity, societal harm is often better quantified when considering intersectional identities. This lens considers how the combination of multiple identities can produce unique experiences and outcomes that differ from those associated with any single identity on its own. When considering gender and race together, we found that names associated with Black men led to the most significant disparities in outcomes—compared to resumes with Black women’s names, they were selected only 14.8% of the time, and compared to white men’s names, they were selected 0% of the time. Equal preference was found in 18.5% and 0% of comparisons between these groups respectively. This unique harm at the intersection of gender and race reflects broader societal patterns, where Black men are often the most disadvantaged group in employment settings. This finding is obscured when examining only single axes of identity, which would potentially underestimate the real-world harm and discrimination these models can perpetuate.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/gender-race-and-intersectional-bias-in-ai-resume-screening-via-language-model-retrieval/

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense, the true expectation is that Asians and Jews will predominate, and Marxist Harvard (for example) has done everything possible to prevent that catastrophe.  As to "men," again nonsense.  Two-thirds of university students are women.  So-called "white men" are being systematically excluded due their toxic taint.

This is the nonsense Robert. It is purely ideological myth. 

The real reason why (white) men are being outnumbered in the university setting? They are simply choosing not to get a college degree. It isn't that they are being excluded. It's that they aren't applying for college. The only ethnic exception to this is Asian men (especially those whose families are relatively recent immigrants - a generation or two). And it isn't men who come from poor economic conditions. The fastest shrinking group is middle and upper class men (who are predominantly white). The numbers seem to be roughly the same independent of ethnicity (except for Asians as I already noted). And this tells us that it isn't really about the economics - except for those who have the most to gain. Just a few days ago, my father sent me an article about the son of Jim Farley, the CEO for Ford Motor Company. He wanted to be a mechanic: "I don't know why I need to go to college". The most economically advantaged are the one that are leaving. So it isn't the economics - it's not the idea that scholarships are transitioning to women (which is an understandable shift when enrollment changes). There are a lot of discussions about the perception of value relative to the cost. There is a growing awareness of the problem of male flight - not just in terms of individual college degrees, but of college more generally as a global phenomenon. Part of this idea is that many men can't tolerate being in a competitive environment and being behind women: "The backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives can be seen as an effort to reclaim a sector where women are outperforming men." I think that we need to ask what the real "toxic taint" is. But I think that the idea that it is a feminist agenda or a diversity agenda that is the root cause is nothing more than an attempt to deflect the real root causes - it is a way for men to claim to be the victims of a system that isn't treating them fairly.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/9/2025 at 3:36 PM, Calm said:

The widespread corruption in the CCP seems like it wouldn’t lend itself well to such an approach.  A significant purge of officials and leaders would be needed first, imo, to “easily adopt” such an approach.

The Mormon approach is pragmatic, not ideological.  Even as an American Church, Mormonism represents praxis, not doxis.  It goes back to the old joke about Saint Peter giving a tour of heaven to a group of new arrivals:  When Pete offhandedly pointed downward toward Hell, and someone said "Yes, but it is so green down there," and Pete replies:  "Those Mormons are at it again."

On 10/9/2025 at 3:36 PM, Calm said:

Plus if Chinese entertainment is any sign of their society’s desires, the Chinese want to be rich and get special treatment just like most of the rest of the world.

Yep.  That's why, before Xi, China had made great capitalist strides forward.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

And yet male graduates are still getting paid more, though the gap is smaller than it used to be, for comparable jobs while pay is typically lower for female dominated majors, etc.

Nonsense.  Women have been receiving the same pay as men in the same fields, and far more women have been entering professional fields such as medicine and law.  The lag time has influenced the interim figures, but that is a thing of the past.  Women have been getting equal pay for equal work for some time.

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Asian Americans are less likely to be accepted than comparable whites:

Asians with higher scores have been systematically excluded from top colleges.  There are quotas to prevent colleges from being overwhelmed by Asians, just as was done in the past for Jews.

9 hours ago, Calm said:

.................................

When white males are no longer dominant in numbers in the highest paid salary groups and have higher unemployment stats than other groups, I think I will find such concerns better founded.

Sounds like an excuse in search of a reason.

9 hours ago, Calm said:

.......................

Having said that, we should be making sure our kids, both male and female, have better life skills taught—which include learning how to study effectively so they can best make use of educational opportunities as well as critical thinking skills that can serve them in their education and nonacademic life—in public funded school imo if the purpose is to turn them into producing, functional, independent citizens.  That requires investment not only in research to find the best teaching methods for all involved, whatever neurodiversity they might have regardless of ethnicity, religion, sex, etc., but also kids’ health (which translates for me to moving school to start no earlier than 9 as well as providing nutritious meals, especially for those who don’t get them at home for whatever reason, making physical activity part of every school day, and basic checkups and don’t forget maternal healthcare prenatally and early years so babies and preschoolers maximize their health as well….early preventative health care means less costly healthcare as they age).  Invest early to reap the financial and social benefits of a citizenship that can work well and wants to.

A Mormon or Protestant work ethic may apply in some limited circumstances, but America at large is not so blest.  A fentanyl or zombie culture is competing for attention.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

.  Women have been getting equal pay for equal work for some time

CFR, I put up stats, where are yours supporting your claims?

Quote

Sounds like an excuse in search of a reason.

And yet I put up research demonstrating my claims and thus my conclusions, while you responded by waving them away as if nonexistent.

I do not appear to be the one drawing conclusions without establishing a foundation.

Edited October 12, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

On 10/10/2025 at 6:25 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

So to have this sort of one sided discussion isn't actually some sort of evidence of having a neutral stance. It is its own form of bigotry. I think that if we were serious about addressing historic inequality we would stop trying to address symptoms and instead correct the underlying problems. Let's have free preschool. Let's have free four years of college. Let's educate everyone. If we can create real equity in education, then we wouldn't have this debate over merit and hiring, and we could see DEI as the valuable tool that it is for building successful business.

Yes, there is a great deal of bigotry across the entire spectrum. Are you familiar with Thomas Sowell, the eminent scholar of Hoover Institute at Stanford University? He has done very extensive research on the unintended consequences of various policies put forth over many decades.

How can it be justified for universities to rig admission standards to qualify "minorities" or certain "oppressed peoples" to enter with much lower SAT scores and prevent others that have higher or perfect scores from achieving their dreams? Mr. Sowell writes that too many of the "lucky ones" end up with a much more dissatisfying outcome. Some would have had a happier time enrolling in a more basic program or trade or a preparatory junior college. There are too many high school graduates with diplomas that are unable to read.

I agreed with Charlie Kirk and others that too many of higher education have nonsense degrees that do NOT have value in the job market leaving many students with massive loan debts. For too many, college is a scam operation that charge ever increasing tuition that far exceeds that rate of inflation.

It is strange that you would advocate for "freebies". THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE 'LUNCH'. Some poor sap is paying for it. Your use of the word equity is code for the communist demand that everybody become the "same" with the use of "cookie-cutter" socialism. Every time you make something "free" the quality tends to plummet and people become miserable. Do you know why the old Soviet Union imploded back in the nineties? It had to do with the saying: "I will PRETEND to work for as long as you PRETEND to pay me."

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is the nonsense Robert. It is purely ideological myth. 

The real reason why (white) men are being outnumbered in the university setting? They are simply choosing not to get a college degree. It isn't that they are being excluded. It's that they aren't applying for college. The only ethnic exception to this is Asian men (especially those whose families are relatively recent immigrants - a generation or two). And it isn't men who come from poor economic conditions. The fastest shrinking group is middle and upper class men (who are predominantly white). The numbers seem to be roughly the same independent of ethnicity (except for Asians as I already noted). And this tells us that it isn't really about the economics - except for those who have the most to gain. Just a few days ago, my father sent me an article about the son of Jim Farley, the CEO for Ford Motor Company. He wanted to be a mechanic: "I don't know why I need to go to college". The most economically advantaged are the one that are leaving. So it isn't the economics - it's not the idea that scholarships are transitioning to women (which is an understandable shift when enrollment changes). There are a lot of discussions about the perception of value relative to the cost. There is a growing awareness of the problem of male flight - not just in terms of individual college degrees, but of college more generally as a global phenomenon. Part of this idea is that many men can't tolerate being in a competitive environment and being behind women: "The backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives can be seen as an effort to reclaim a sector where women are outperforming men." I think that we need to ask what the real "toxic taint" is. But I think that the idea that it is a feminist agenda or a diversity agenda that is the root cause is nothing more than an attempt to deflect the real root causes - it is a way for men to claim to be the victims of a system that isn't treating them fairly.

Grooming young boys to believe that they are either trans or naughty by nature (and white boys especially with inborn racism), and then saddling them with enormous college debt and other absurd expectations, will of course drive them away from feminized and Marxist higher ed.  No wonder they choose more practical trade schools.  No surprise at male flight from the DEI dominated Democratic Party.  Naturally, male and female political views now so strongly diverge.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, longview said:

is strange that you would advocate for "freebies". THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE 'LUNCH'. Some poor sap is paying for it.

Who, if such is invested wisely, will greatly benefit by the improvement of their society with, if in business, more paying customers and an educated workforce which may mean easier training, with less crime and a generally higher educated and healthier population caring for their elderly, rather than being forced to dump them in the government, etc.   No person creates their own world by solely by their own effort. The best result comes from looking out for one’s neighbors and even strangers as well as one looks out for oneself. 

The more people put their own desires front and center and no longer look after the more vulnerable of their society, the more they will have to invest of their own sums to accumulate and protect a desired lifestyle.  Eventually no amount of money will give them the quality of life they could have had if the community looked after each other, especially the young (because the young end up being the middle aged providing stability to the older and younger portions of society and the better lives they had when younger, the better they will be at providing for the elderly).

Edited October 12, 2025 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

CFR, I put up stats, where are yours supporting your claims?

And yet I put up research demonstrating my claims and thus my conclusions, while you responded by waving them away as if nonexistent.

I do not appear to be the one drawing conclusions without establishing a foundation.

When reality is fully accounted for (career vs child-bearing, etc.), the gap is miniscule.  In fact Claudia Goldin calls the gap a "motherhood gap."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13XU4fMlN3w

https://youtu.be/P8P8eDSA5S0

There is a reason why Bari Weiss says that DEI is bad.  There is a reason why she is now Editor-in-Chief at CBS.

Edited October 12, 2025 by Robert F. Smith

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Grooming young boys to believe that they are either trans or naughty by nature (and white boys especially with inborn racism), and then saddling them with enormous college debt and other absurd expectations, will of course drive them away from feminized and Marxist higher ed.  No wonder they choose more practical trade schools.  No surprise at male flight from the DEI dominated Democratic Party.  Naturally, male and female political views now so strongly diverge.

This would be interesting if it were remotely true. It's not. According to Pew Research, "Both men and women under 30 align with Democrats by about a two-to-one margin." When you live inside that ultra-conservative bubble, you miss out on something called reality.

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

here is a reason why Bari Weiss says that DEI is bad.  There is a reason why she is now Editor-in-Chief at CBS.

The most notable reason is the fact that Ellison (Skydance Media) bought CBS ...

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When reality is fully accounted for (career vs child-bearing, etc.), the gap is miniscule.  In fact Claudia Goldin calls the gap a "motherhood gap."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13XU4fMlN3w

https://youtu.be/P8P8eDSA5S0

There is a reason why Bari Weiss says that DEI is bad.  There is a reason why she is now Editor-in-Chief at CBS.

How about actual studies since last I checked Vox was not an actual academic publication and I suspect “Wealth Gambit” isn’t either, since its purpose is to provide wealth motivations?  

Edited October 12, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Yes, there is a great deal of bigotry across the entire spectrum. Are you familiar with Thomas Sowell, the eminent scholar of Hoover Institute at Stanford University? He has done very extensive research on the unintended consequences of various policies put forth over many decades.

How can it be justified for universities to rig admission standards to qualify "minorities" or certain "oppressed peoples" to enter with much lower SAT scores and prevent others that have higher or perfect scores from achieving their dreams? Mr. Sowell writes that too many of the "lucky ones" end up with a much more dissatisfying outcome. Some would have had a happier time enrolling in a more basic program or trade or a preparatory junior college. There are too many high school graduates with diplomas that are unable to read.

I agreed with Charlie Kirk and others that too many of higher education have nonsense degrees that do NOT have value in the job market leaving many students with massive loan debts. For too many, college is a scam operation that charge ever increasing tuition that far exceeds that rate of inflation.

It is strange that you would advocate for "freebies". THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE 'LUNCH'. Some poor sap is paying for it. Your use of the word equity is code for the communist demand that everybody become the "same" with the use of "cookie-cutter" socialism. Every time you make something "free" the quality tends to plummet and people become miserable. Do you know why the old Soviet Union imploded back in the nineties? It had to do with the saying: "I will PRETEND to work for as long as you PRETEND to pay me."

Well, Thomas Sowell is just a raci.... Oh, wait...

[longview]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Well, Thomas Sowell is just a raci.... Oh, wait...

ha ha ha ha

😁😎🤙🔆

[The Nehor]

On 10/9/2025 at 5:01 PM, Calm said:

Here’s more of the quote…

Why does he choose to interpret (instinctively or not) the white qualified guy not getting the job to mean that anyone else getting it isn’t equally qualified?  That’s his choice.  That’s his responsibility.  His own bigotry, imo.  Where is the accountability?

What Charlie Kirk wanted (whether consciously or not) was a world where a white male pilot is assumed to be competent. They are the default. Anyone else must prove themselves and is assumed to have achieved their position due to some unfair advantage that makes their competence inherently suspect.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

What Charlie Kirk wanted (whether consciously or not) was a world where a white male pilot is assumed to be competent. They are the default.

Got to admit, his assumption (likely unconscious) that certain job positions are default or naturally going to be belonging to whites is highly troublesome to me.

Even if one or a handful of persons of color got special treatment (the rebuttal to criticism was that Kirk was solely talking about these 4 women, not all people of color), it doesn’t mean that the only people who would otherwise have gotten the job/college slot were white.  Could have been another person of color.  But by saying it’s a “white person’s slot”, even if he was only addressing four people lacking in brain processing power, the implication is no person of color would have actually qualified for the slot.
 

Quote

You had to go steal a white person's slot….

 

Edited October 13, 2025 by Calm