I found the source of Scott's mention of Mark Cubin, which was a discussion with Vivak Ramaswamy. Mark is known as having placed a risky bet against the dotcom bubble at just the right time, and getting a yuuge payout.
Vivek seemed to miss opportunities to frame things in a way that optimally explains his position, which is uncharacteristic. That might just be my bias of finding philosophy compelling, while most people respond to anecdotes.
The example of Mark winning yuuge when everyone else lost primed me to notice his motivation for supporting DEI (pronounced Die). In practically any situation in which a roughly binary outcome will occur (x will do better or x will do worse, x will do better than y), profit can be made by correctly betting on the outcome, regardless if the outcome is generally positive or not.
What became apparent to me is that Mark owns significant portions of Big Business. Large corporations are motivated to support heavy regulation, for instance, because HairMart can pass the cost of required certifications, inspections, and insurance along to the customer while pushing Betty's Hair Service out of business.
In the Vietnam war of DEI, Mark has bet on the Vietcong instead of the South Vietnamese. By getting first dibs on the "diversity" talent pool and then pushing for compulsion by everyone else, he's shorting meritocracy while positioned to gain from this failure.
I respect placing a bet against any particular thing, but not while simultaneously influencing the outcome, especially when it requires compromising functional values and systems.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
edit: Women initiate 90% of marriage failures:
|
As Scott would say, the system determines outcome. If the system creates incentives for certain behavior, with little to no disincentive, then you will see more of that behavior. You think those in favor of equity over equality are going to pick this discrepancy in divorce initiation up, demanding social unrest until people identifying as men initiate 50% of the divorces?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
'Hate speech' = hypnosis? I'm not sure I get it.
|
I meant to clarify. The right broadly defends 1st amendment freedom of speech to include equating a political figure to Hitler, and creating a fantasy narrative of the end of democracy should that figure represent 1/3rd of the federal government. Such rhetoric is surely a catalyst for people with poor mental health to act violently and tragically. Despite all that, the juice is worth the squeeze to those who see the value of the 1st amendment.
As an aside, the rest of the West is broadly deciding that the juice is not worth the squeeze, and they appear to be nations in decline. I wonder if intolerance for diversity of opinion, and decline, are related somehow.