Chira numbuh wan!

[NopeNopeNopeNope]

What’s worse too about DEI is that the entire premise of DEI is in itself de-motivating. It’s like saying hey the system is rigged against you but maybe we can help if we can get every company in the country to buy into DEI

Weee, that gets me stoked to try

Even if discrimination exists, it isn’t the ultimate killer of representation. The ultimate killer is a numbers game. There aren’t enough numbers trying. If we consider discrimination on a spectrum between 0-100 with 100 being “I will never hire a black person ever no matter how large the company” and 0 means “I never discriminate” let’s assume a hypothetical as half of all employers are between 20-80% discriminating or something

If 1000 people apply, and 80% are discriminated against, 200 still ge through

If 10 apply, and 80% are discriminated against, 2 get through

Discrimination sucks and can be subtle. Improving the numbers game isn’t subtle at all

[shovelquest]

DEI does not work because if a yt guy says that it prevented him from getting a job the DEI people go "GOOD!"

That is not a solution.

[Ekco]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Steve Wynn's petition to the Supreme Court to overturn the New York Times v. Sullivan decision is indeed significant.

so we'd basically have the same libel laws as Europe, the place the left is always saying is far superior to the US, up until 5 minutes ago when they also starting fighting back against gender affirming care for minors and other things.

i wonder what the polls would say is the approval / disapproval of this.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Ekco [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so we'd basically have the same liable laws as Europe.

To be fair, that's all you had to say to make me flip and say we shouldn't do it [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Irony is it'd make the other side do the same!

[Botten]

Originally Posted by Ekco [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so we'd basically have the same libel laws as Europe, the place the left is always saying is far superior to the US, up until 5 minutes ago when they also starting fighting back against gender affirming care for minors and other things.

i wonder what the polls would say is the approval / disapproval of this.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

-This could lead to erosion of press protections overturning this decision could weaken the First Amendment protections for the press, making it easier for public figures to win defamation cases.

-This could threaten investigative journalism like it has in European laws, this change could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, as media outlets might avoid publishing critical stories out of fear of legal consequences.

-Holding public figures accountable for their actions is a key role of the media. Weakening press protections could lead to reduced accountability and transparency. Destroying the narrative with money is just a free pass for pushing propaganda.

-A free and robust press is essential for a healthy democracy. Limiting the press's ability to report freely could negatively impact public discourse and the public's right to know.

[Ekco]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

-This could lead to erosion of press protections overturning this decision could weaken the First Amendment protections for the press, making it easier for public figures to win defamation cases.

-This could threaten investigative journalism like it has in European laws, this change could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, as media outlets might avoid publishing critical stories out of fear of legal consequences.

-Holding public figures accountable for their actions is a key role of the media. Weakening press protections could lead to reduced accountability and transparency. Destroying the narrative with money is just a free pass for pushing propaganda.

-A free and robust press is essential for a healthy democracy. Limiting the press's ability to report freely could negatively impact public discourse and the public's right to know.

the press is already 100% captured by the companies that buy ads or just straight up owned by oligarchs now

everything your lighting your hair on fire about should of been dealt with 20+ fucking years ago, the war is over my dude

there needs to be a dr.strange love movie but instead of nukes it's the cyberpunk technocracy timeline we're on, so "stop worrying and love the AI CEO Overlords"

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Ekco [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

stop worrying and love the AI CEO Overlords

I wonder if after doge gets rid of a lot of these departments if their intention is to rehire young AI people to run them. Keeping up with the latest in Ai.

Would be nuts if they add "with an integrated link connecting them all!" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Seems like a stretch, but I'd say what's happening now I thought would have been a stretch.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

-This could lead to erosion of press protections overturning this decision could weaken the First Amendment protections for the press, making it easier for public figures to win defamation cases.

-This could threaten investigative journalism like it has in European laws, this change could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, as media outlets might avoid publishing critical stories out of fear of legal consequences.

-Holding public figures accountable for their actions is a key role of the media. Weakening press protections could lead to reduced accountability and transparency. Destroying the narrative with money is just a free pass for pushing propaganda.

-A free and robust press is essential for a healthy democracy. Limiting the press's ability to report freely could negatively impact public discourse and the public's right to know.

They denied cert in 2022 for a case involving the Sullivan precedent and the composition of the court has not changed.

Only Gorsuch was interested.

[Botten]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They denied cert in 2022 for a case involving the Sullivan precedent and the composition of the court has not changed.

Only Gorsuch was interested.

I fear with the lean so far right and fresh faces the worst can happen.

[Ekco]

their libel laws + our 1A and it's fine. people have sued to the shit out of tabloids and other fake news over there and won

they don't have 1A though

sucks to suck