Violating the Civil Rights Act is a much bigger deal than slander, in my view.
Yes, I have a higher standard of evidence for violations of the US Civil Rights Act, which is a VERY big deal that affects ALL Americans.
It's also a bigger deal for the defendant, who in many cases will be wealthy and powerful and politically connected, while the plaintiff is none of those things. A paper trail is hard to establish in most cases, and a "gentleman's agreement" of like minds leaves none.
Yes, we know you do.
And you honestly can't think of any reasons why someone might not?
Personal choice.
And for what reasons might someone make that choice, do you think?
Cuz they might be suing someone poor and won't be able to get much money out of them.
Thats a lie, i never stated such a thing.
Ah, so your argument is not for civil equity, just how much cash you can make.
Ah, the defence of the indefendable
But it's not evidence of racial discrimination. It's class discrimination. The folks who do these "studies" seem curiously disinterested in seeing if lower-class White sounding names also received lower call backs. These "studies" are tailored for a pre-deterimined outcome. Do you think names like Ben Carson, Ryan Coogler, or Jordan Peele would be on the no-call-back list?
*see entire thread
Is it not sexist and racist? I thought it was. Maybe I'm wrong.
Do we really have to start over?
I'm not asking anyone to start over.
It's almost amusing how hard they're working to to try to conflate discrimination and disparity based on race and discrimination and disparity based on class, honestly. Not least because they're pointedly supporting the people who actively and directly work to make both (and more) worse. Pretty openly, too. Only one major political party in the US is working to create a permanent underclass, after all.
Pretty ignorant of you to say.
Sure! Those specific two things aren't mutually exclusive, especially when that's interpreted as having a sound knowledge of a limited subset of science (because no one is even remotely an expert for all of it)! That's missing the point, though. MAGA is used as a vehicle by those who sabotage science, in a number of ways. Among those are various false or deceptive claims about what various scientific studies say (the principle in play is not limited to scientific studies, of course) which are created by or seized onto by those like Trausti who are just looking to try to make some preferred conclusion that they started with more plausible, without any real regard for truth. MAGA sabotages science, especially when it's not telling them what they want to hear or they merely suspect that they won't like to hear. So much dishonesty and all around sabotage naturally impacts any credibility that the rare case of an actual expert who supports the MAGA claims about some bit of science, not least because of how many MAGA CT level self proclaimed "experts" are normally in play.
I defend all people who are attacked.
On the topic of science and people being attacked, you didn't say a word about the National Science Foundation, of course.
Certainly you can have sound knowledge of science. Sound practice is another matter. It is possible, after all, not only to be ignorant of fields other than one's own, but to be insane or demented. If you actively support a person who has explicitly and repeatedly disparaged multiple scientific findings, defunded agencies and ended programs based on them, and conspicuously appointed enemies of science and public health to positions of authority, sound knowledge is irrelevant. I firmly believe that support of MAGA and its practitioners is prima facie evidence of opposition to science, whatever one's theoretical knowledge might be, and even if one is knowledgeable in some scientific field, such support justifies skepticism at best when a MAGA supporter makes a scientific statement.
I would like to see some of our anti-DEI posters try to defend that.
I wouldn't. For all the legitimate complaints that are sprinkled in among the mostly inane arguments, they've generally already shown, quite definitively, that even the legitimate complaints are not in good faith by supporting Trump and co. More inane bad faith arguments and efforts at finding some superficially plausible path to a preset conclusion that they can grasp onto without closer inspection means more personal investment and that means diving deeper into the cult mentality that the Republican Party's been nurturing.
No problem likely. I think one of the features of anti-DEI arguments, as in many similar ones, is that although the instances they criticize are always seen statistically, the apparent bias that leads to them is never so. Seen disconnected from trends and tendencies, no event can be characterized as indicating bias. So they can just say it isn't a DEI issue. She just happens to be a black woman. Could happen to anybody. Whether this event is good or bad it needn't affect their argument.
If you think that, then you are a moron. I know many highly acclaimed scientists, including at least one Nobel Laureate, who voted for Trump.
They say self-knowledge is the first step.