If you were discriminated against by Disney or its subsidiaries (ABC, ESPN, Marvel, etc), just reply to this post to receive legal support https://t.co/PDqCgJKAY5
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 6, 2024
February 7, 2024
Elon Musk makes a big move to fund anti-DEI litigation against Disney, ABC, ESPN, and Marvel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
58 comments:
I'll take 'Making DeSantis Smile' for $500, please.
what happens if they lose?
Queue up the this is ridiculous because why bother since he’s going to lose anyways bandwagon.
Elon Musk is generation Z's Peter Thiel.
Lawfare we like.
The more they come after him (and by 'they' I mean the Biden administration), the more creatively he fights back. He is smarter than they are, and relentless. The question is: Is he more relentless than an out of control government with unending funds? (they simply print more when they feel the need).
Champagne tonight at law firms across the country!
When I first heard the term Reverse Discrimination in a political science class around 1979, I said that's just discrimination. They are watering it down with the term Reverse Discrimination. At that time, I had no interest in Law. In fact, I was an engineering student. I was about a half-ass commie too. Defiant, outspoken atheist. The reason Communism failed is that they didn't do it right etc. I took the pro-gun control position in a class discussion against the only other people talking. My very conservative professor told me afterward that I had won the argument. Good times. I didn't become more conservative until an economics teacher suggested that I needed to read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and it completely flipped me. He liked me and thought I was smart and that's why he went out of the way to steer me intellectually. I'm grateful to him for that.
What is With white men? WHY do they think that they should receive legal protection?
Let's take a look at the facts:
white men are NOT brown
white men are NOT women
heck! straight cis-white men aren't even queer.
legal rights are ONLY for protected groups. white men EXIST (and Exist, ONLY) to pay taxes.
DEATH To ALL white men!! (well.. after they've paid their taxes)
Good. Althouse may be wildly in love with the neverending culture wars (as demonstrated by her tripling down on Tirien Steinbach) but perhaps more defeats besides Dobbs will help sour her on the delights of elitism.
Musk follows through, even when the stakes are high, because the stakes are so
high.
The only good thing about the chart is that it exposes the quota system that underlies DEI and spells it out explicitly.
He is also funding Gina Carrano's lawsuit against Disney and Lucasfilm for firing her from The Mandalorian. I'd be curious to read the pleadings in that lawsuit.
Elon Musk does NOT GET enough credit from the Republican political side because of their hatred of Evs, which is pretty asinine.
Disney is evil.
Are white women an underrepresented group?
How about conservative Catholics? (Ha Ha)
The first efforts to de-institutionalize the madness, bearding the lion in its lair. World's richest man, stepping up to give back to the world. Good for Elon.
The left has shown subsidized lawfare works. See E. Jean and Michael Mann. So let's try it.
Bonus: Elon is using profits made from tax subsidies and white lefty Tesla virtue signalers.
Let's go, John Galt!
The problem with EV’s outside of the unreliability is government choosing sides on what gets funded.
So, who thinks Musk makes it through 2024 without being indicted by the Biden DoJ?
Only slightly longer version of Howard: "Lie back and think of England."
Being born on third base isn't enough.
Has anyone seen the definition for "Underrepresented Groups" from this graphic? Aside from the "don't ask, don't tell" stinger at the bottom of the graphic, my assumption is that UG is never defined. It's part of a nudge and a wink since all Left Thinking participants know exactly Who and What are UG.
I always hear something along the lines of "the discovery on this is going to be fantastic" and then am underwhelmed when nothing juicy shows up. Fingers crossed for an exception in this case.
The left invented lawfare following FDR's New Deal legal losses in the Supreme Court way back in the 1930s. He first tried to pack the court, and then ended up packing federal agencies with people to implement "agency rules" rather than voted-for laws. The slow-as-mud conservatives didn't react, complied, or weren't aware of lawfare until the 1970s with Roe v. Wade and the sudden unconstitutionality of the death penalty.
Soooooo, after all that time in the 2020s lawfare has turned into balanced and bloodless trench warfare? We'll either end up like the EU, with 1,000,000 rules for walking down the street, or declare détente and move on. My bet is on 1,000,000 new rules.
Envy is the worst of sins, Howard. You shouldn't pracice it and just be content to be the mediocrity you are.
Few will notice how Disney's policy serves the interests of white men, preserving a solid 50% percent for them, representing far more than their share of the population.
Musk acts openly. Soros acts in the dark.
"Few will notice how Disney's policy serves the interests of white men, preserving a solid 50% percent for them, representing far more than their share of the population."
But 50% "or more" for URMs does not seem to "preserve" 50% for white men, and some categories specify no percentage (e.g., URM casting director). Even assuming the DEI guidelines should be viewed as a quota, whether it serves the interests of white men depends on the distribution of skill and talent; if the proportion of relevant white male merit greatly exceeds the population share, set-asides will hurt them.
Fighting for free speech.
Good.
the left are collectively anti-free speech - and they can suck eggs.
Ann, why should "share of population" be a relevant metric for casting a show? Shouldn't the needs of the story prevail, instead of building a story around a diversity quota?
@Althouse: preserving a solid 50% percent for them, representing far more than their share of the population.
EXPECTING EMPLOYMENT RATES TO MATCH DEMOGRAPHICS IS DOWNRIGHT RIDICULOUS. The government tracks the percentage of the workforce by job type. Some jobs are overwhelmingly populated by White males. For example, engineering schools are filled with White and Asian males. Females are often just 5% to 10%, as few want to get underneath trucks and trains and down in the grease to develop new transmissions and suspension systems. Few want to climb out on bridges to assess the tensile strength of cables either. Lots of research shows that "men like things and women like people." While women certainly CAN do thing-oriented technical work, when given the CHOICE globally, they gravitate to traditional female caregiving roles (e.g., nursing, teaching, etc.).
See the research below: "The more gender equality the fewer women in STEM."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/
The issues facing Hispanic and Black employment are different, as education is the first essential hoop for a highly-paid technical career. If more do not go to college and if more do not choose math-heavy classes, they will remain in lower paid careers. Popular art, music, sociology, ethnic studies, political science, and psychology degrees are literally easier and it's easier to fill those classrooms.
Per BLM and equity efforts, MIT recently tried to end the SAT/ACT, but quickly reversed course as they learned that world class engineering students needed very strong math skills to survive. Dartmouth also just brought back the SAT. The 19th and 20th century education "progressives" figured this out in great detail -- the 21st century equity crowd wants cold facts to be untrue and perceives merit/skill/hard work as biased, unfair, and retrograde. They are 100% wrong.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickhess/2024/02/06/dartmouth-reinstates-the-sat-striking-a-blow-for-fairness-and-merit/?sh=786d2ecf5e07
"Few will notice how Disney's policy serves the interests of white men, preserving a solid 50% percent for them, representing far more than their share of the population."
Excellent thinking for a Tovarisch perhaps, but I wonder how much Althouse really endorses what this list directs as policy. Is over-representation by diktat better than over-representation by historical means? Has culture shifted so much that it obviates the need to understand 'Why?', are we now free to skip over this nettlesome part and simply follow observation with 'that's bad, must correct'? What do best business practices command? How is Disney faring under these new rules? Will the 'means' justify its 'end'?
Raise your hand if you want to be employed based on your skin color, genitalia, and interest in whom you have sex?
Careful Rusty, you might get pinched for assault with a dead weapon.
"Ann, why should "share of population" be a relevant metric for casting a show?"
I didn't say it should and, in fact, I don't think that it should.
I just wanted to shine some light on the aspect of the policy that isn't noticed, and I suspect that the interests of white men are being bolstered by this clumsy and conspicuous approach to including women and minorities. I suspect the importance of white men is re-enforced and re-confirmed.
Are white women considered an underrepresented group? Genuinely wondering. My guess is probably not, at least for Disney's purposes.
This is why the common law forbade champerty and maintenance.
Good for Musk! Look for all the libtards to support Racism and discrimination against people at Disney because of their "love of humanity".
LOL
Lawfare we like.
Tell us what the rules are and we’ll try to make you play by them….
“ Are white women considered an underrepresented group? Genuinely wondering. My guess is probably not, at least for Disney's purposes.”
My first guess was yes, but now I’m thinking no. First, they are White, which is a big strike against them. And second, they tend to marry White Men and have Whiite Babies, almost half of whom will grow up to be White Men. Of course, they’re working on that problem with the whole Trans thing, so maybe that’s OK.
I just wanted to shine some light on the aspect of the policy that isn't noticed, and I suspect that the interests of white men are being bolstered by this clumsy and conspicuous approach to including women and minorities. I suspect the importance of white men is re-enforced and re-confirmed.
White men have historically had two advantages/privileges:
A) they have money (generally); and
B) until recently, they didn’t have grifters demanding they follow a specific ideology, although our port side folks are trying to change that.
If you have money, you are a potential customer and the enterprise requires customers. If you don’t have money, the best you can be is a stakeholder, but that doesn’t insure anything other than a bullshit land acknowledgment or some such.
United Airlines just announced it is reseving 50% of it's pilot openings for minority hires. Not a bad policy if they meet pilot requirements. If they're just filling left hand seats for color then I don't reccomend flying United.
Put the pipe down, Howard.
Put a chick in it and make her gay…
Blogger Enigma said...
While women certainly CAN do thing-oriented technical work, when given the CHOICE globally, they gravitate to traditional female caregiving roles (e.g., nursing, teaching, etc.).
A number of people have written on this over the years. Thomas Sowell had most of a chapter in one of his books in the 80s.
It has a lot to do with 2 things, physical strength and child bearing and rearing.
Women tend to avoid physically demanding jobs because their bodies, generally, just are not built for it.
They also tend to go into jobs where there is less penalty for time off. Either short periods (a day or two) to take care of family matters or long periods (a year or two to bear and care for an infant)
One of the examples was a tax lawyer vs a teacher. The tax lawyer who takes short periods off may miss important meetings and such. The teacher will have a substitute and won't really be missed. (Unless it gets excessive)
The tax lawyer who takes a year off work, even assuming that they did not forget anything up to when the left, will be a year out of step with current laws, court cases and so on. They may be even less qualified, in terms of current knowledge, than a recent graduate.
This also affects pay. Men will tend to look for the job that puts the most money in the paycheck. Non-monetary marginal benefits are nice but not that important. Women want the money, of course, but will sacrifice some pay for more flexible working conditions, better medical plan and things that impact the ability to raise and care for kids.
These are very broad general statements of course. There will be many men and women to whom it doesn't apply or to whom it applies slightly.
John Henry
Not my question but I remember an article, probably from the 90s, that asked about diversity in Jerry Seinfeld show. The question was which of the 3 supporting characters would you make a minority. And what minority?
Make Kramer black, for example, and you would be demeaning blacks. Make Elaine Puerto Rican or Mexican-AMerican and you would be maligning that group. And so on.
John Henry
Not clear on how this is "lawfare" as a couple have mentioned. There seems to be considerable evidence that the actress was discriminated against based on her race. That is clearly illegal if true.
Musk has made a standing offer to go after any company for anyone who has suffered similarly. So not picking and choosing cases or targets.
This is from Wikipedia:
Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual's usage of their legal rights.[1][2][3][4]
The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money (e.g. SLAPP suits), or winning a public relations victory.
I don't see how this meets the definition.
Better examples of lawfare would be govt against president emeritus trump, or Mann against Steyn (just finished listening to yesterdays session) or Rosa Parks against the Montgomery bus company.
John Henry
If they're just filling left hand seats for color then I don't recommend flying United.
Left hand? I think it is the right-hand side. Neighbor across the street just retired. He was an United instructor Captain for Airbus A320 (319, 321). He is a minority. Prior to flying for United, he flew for the US Navy. Here is some of his flying: https://youtu.be/9qndT3j6ttQ
I do think reserving any seats is a dumb idea, considering there is a pilot shortage in the industry. Rather than reserving seats, how about offering scholarships?
Althouse, you are assuming what "Underrepresented Groups" refers to. Need they include white women, for example? Your suggestion that 50% of the slots are reserved for cis-white-men b/c everyone else is "underrepresented" strikes me as out of kilter with, among other things, Disney's own, now well known, corporate policy.
"Tell us what the rules are and we’ll try to make you play by them…."
That's why you'll never see the rules defined.
It worked for Peter Thiel and Deadspin.
Isn't this what Reid Hoffman did when he bankrolled Slut Jean Carroll's suit against Trump?
'Bonus: Elon is using profits made from tax subsidies and white lefty Tesla virtue signalers.'
Tax subsidies are law and anyone could have profited from them.
I am a white Tesla owner and am anything but a lefty. It was the right car at the right price at the right time.
At this point--and things could and almost certainly will change if the post-2020 practices continue--the problem isn't that the halls of academia or the cubicles of corporate management or the wards of the hospitals are filled with un- and under-qualified minorities who are unable to perform their jobs, its that the elimination of all objective standards has caused all the wrong white people to be hired and promoted. It's those incompetents who are destroying all the institutions they have come to "manage."
It happens so frequently that it almost HAS to be by design. A group of people will suddenly discover that some minimum standard or rule of thumb or common practice "disadvantages minorities." The reasoning behind this is almost always racist, but no one call that out. With my own ears I have heard "You can't expect Scholars of Color to be as 'productive' as white scholars" (which I guess is technically true, because in my own department they are on average slightly MORE productive. But I digress...). At the prompting of the group, we'll eliminate an objective standard like "A second book for promotion to full Professor."
There will suddenly be a stampede of people taking advantage of the new, relaxed standard, and, wouldn't you know it, NONE of them are racial minorities. They were, instead, white mediocrities (about 2/3 of them women) who in their applications universally gave themselves that great all-purpose excuse: "So much of the work I do is invisible..." (As if productive scholars don't mentor colleagues and students, serve on committees, handle personal conflicts, etc., etc., etc.)
Then, like most failed professors in contemporary academia, they transitioned over to the Administrative track and now they're "running" the college into the ground with endless projects that are never even fully implemented, much less completed, before the next big splashy project is announced.
The parallel with what is happening in corporate America is that these people (a) LOVE "reorganization"; (b) NEVER leave their offices (or, nowadays, home), only interact with people through a computer and have no idea what is actually going on in their organizations; (c) have ZERO concern for the best interests of the organization but make every decision based on personal career-path maximization.
As I said, if current iron-fisted practices of hiring and promotion go on we MAY end up with organizations stuffed full of incompetent minority bosses, but right now that's not what we have (probably because, in my experience at least, the minority scholars absolutely do not trust the "benevolence" of various committees and so tend to come up for tenure or promotion with impregnable cases.
*I know that the case of Claudine Gay would tend to militate against the argument I am making above, but I am just judging on my personal knowledge and experience in a small liberal arts college and from what I see first hand at similar schools in the northeast when I have done some visiting or consulting work. And actually, the case against Gay wasn't so much that she was incompetent, but that she was dishonest (i.e., she was pushing the limits of the relaxed standards because all she cared about was climbing the ladder). All the racial-minority scholars I know personally actually want to be teachers and scholars--or they wouldn't have accepted a job at a small liberal arts college in the first place.
If you've been flying United over the past several decades, Rusty, you are either a fool or a masochist.
We learned that Disney is evil back when they fired their IT department to replace them with temporary workers from India, who would not get benefits. The fired workers had to train their replacement as a condition of getting their severance.
Has everyone forgotten that incident already?
Howard.
I don't fly as much as I used to, but still have many friends in the industry. The pilots don't want anybody in that right hand seat that they can't trust.
As I've said before the FAA is the only federal agency that I know of the makes its rules based on input from commercial and private pilots and mechanics. By the time that person has the left hand seat they have the experience and hours that qualify them to be there. United is playing with disaster. Would you want your pilot at anything other than the 99th percentile?
As an example of promoted beyond their ability there is a UTube video of THflygirl who crashed her plane. You can bet there's going to at least one flight instructor that will never fly a plane again.
"Elon Musk makes a big move to fund anti-DEI litigation against Disney, ABC, ESPN, and Marvel."
No, he's funding "pro civil rights litigation".
Disney, ABC, ESPN, and Marvel are racist and sexist pigs. Because that's what DEI is, institutionalized racism, sexism, religious bigotry, and bigotry against people because of where they're born (demonstrated by valuing "not native born Americans" over those of us born here).
Good for Musk.
Bad for you, for the bad headline
Prof. M. Drout said...
At this point--and things could and almost certainly will change if the post-2020 practices continue--the problem isn't that the halls of academia or the cubicles of corporate management or the wards of the hospitals are filled with un- and under-qualified minorities who are unable to perform their jobs, its that the elimination of all objective standards has caused all the wrong white people to be hired and promoted. It's those incompetents who are destroying all the institutions they have come to "manage."
No, it's both. Because all those incompetent women are "minorities" under these systems.
And sorry, but at my highly selective college I saw the reality of "affirmative action": essentially ALL the black students who went there were totally academically unqualified to be there, the ones who would have been academically qualified to be there went to more competitive schools where they were NOT qualified to be there, and so they all had to go to fields where there was no objectively qualifiable merit, because if they didn't they flunked out.
So no, I dont' believe that somewhere there was hidden some special pool of "actually qualified and well educated AA recipients"
Post a Comment