Assassination Attempt - Secret Service - DEI

[Some Schmo]

I suppose my main question is, if ceeboo was really interested in whether DEI played a part in, well, any failure, why would he come here and ask us rather than going to a DEI website and learning about it? Does that strike you as honest?

I think we must separate between "honesty" and "intellectual honesty". A person can be honest without being intellectually honest, which is a higher bar and with a lot more subjectivity to determine.

By the way, I'm not necessarily disagreeing about your decisions as to people who are worth trying to have a discussion with, I'm participating in the aside about those reasons is all.

That's an interesting point, Gad, and certainly something to chew on.

[Kishkumen]

It's only a waste of time if you don't care to know about it. However, if you're going to accuse it as the source of a problem, knowing about it is critical to the point you're trying to make.

Yeah, to an extent I do not care about it. At least, I am not worried about it.

I agree, but I have to at least sense a genuine desire to get to the answer from the people raising those issues.

There are probably more and less effective ways of going about that. I am betting that our sarcasm and insults do not encourage ceeboo to try.

[Some Schmo]

There are probably more and less effective ways of going about that. I am betting that our sarcasm and insults do not encourage ceeboo to try.

Certainly. I wouldn't talk to ceeboo the way I do if I were trying to persuade him, but I don't care nearly enough to try.

[Kishkumen]

Certainly. I wouldn't talk to ceeboo the way I do if I were trying to persuade him, but I don't care nearly enough to try.

Fair enough. I like ceeboo. I believe ceeboo is honest, and I think he does see the world in a different way from my way of seeing the world.

[huckelberry]

Throwing the concept of honesty into this kind of situation is toxic as hell. It's one the worst aspects of online discourse. I disagree with Ceeboo on all kinds of things, but to leverage those disagreements into claims of dishonesty is uncalled for. It’s the very worst part of the back and forth between Mopologists and critics, where every trivial mistake generates accusations of dishonesty.

i've interacted with Ceeboo quite a bit, and I have no reason to question his honesty. Our political worldviews are so far apart that I'm sure we say things that, as they say, strains our personal credulity. But I think it is a mistake to from that to a conclusion that other is being dishonest..

Ceebs, if I've given you the impression that I've questioned your honesty, I apologize. I take it on face value that what you say is honest and grounded in good faith. I may disagree with your assumptions or your reasoning on some issues, but I don't question your honesty or personal integrity.

I certainly agree with Res Ipsa statement here and think it is valuable, worth being repeated.

[Some Schmo]

Throwing the concept of honesty into this kind of situation is toxic as hell. It's one the worst aspects of online discourse. I disagree with Ceeboo on all kinds of things, but to leverage those disagreements into claims of dishonesty is uncalled for. Its the very worst part of the back and forth between Mopologists and critics, where every trivial mistake generates accusations of dishonesty.

i've interacted with Ceeboo quite a bit, and I have no reason to question his honesty. Our political worldviews are so far apart that I'm sure we say things that, as they say, strains our personal credulity. But I think it is a mistake to from that to a conclusion that other is being dishonest..

Ceebs, if I've given you the impression that I've questioned your honesty, I apologize. I take it on face value that what you say is honest and grounded in good faith. I may disagree with your assumptions or your reasoning on some issues, but I don't question your honesty or personal integrity.

I certainly agree with Res Ipsa statement here and think it is valuable , worth being repeated.

I've been trying to avoid conversation with ceeboo since he reappeared because he has a posting pattern which is predictable and, I'm sorry to say, strikes me as incredibly disingenuous.

It may not seem like it (because I struggle with it), but I've been trying very hard not to dust it up with people on this board. I got sucked into my recent exchange with ceeboo and now I'm reminding myself why I tried to avoid it in the first place.

I don't have to say anything more about him, and I'll be trying to avoid it going forward.

[canpakes]

Due to the critically important role of the Secret Service, I remain very interested in finding out how this total failure could have possibly happened. In doing so, I am willing to look at everything about the SS, including the DEI policies.

Great. If you’re interested in DEI’s assumed role, then you’re back to starting with these questions:

- How do you prove that a DEI hiring practice is the reason why a person has made the decision that they did?

- What is the mechanism used in conjunction with the above that also rules out the possibility that any other person not deemed a ‘DEI hire’ would or could not have made the same decision from simple poor judgment?

[Binger]

Due to the critically important role of the Secret Service, I remain very interested in finding out how this total failure could have possibly happened. In doing so, I am willing to look at everything about the SS, including the DEI policies.

Great. If you’re interested in DEI’s assumed role, then you’re back to starting with these questions:

- How do you prove that a DEI hiring practice is the reason why a person has made the decision that they did?

- What is the mechanism used in conjunction with the above that also rules out the possibility that any other person not deemed a ‘DEI hire’ would or could not have made the same decision from simple poor judgment?

Have you considered using google or something to get the answers and creating your own interpretations?

It's a thought. Ceeboo is wrong a lot, he might not have the correct answer for you.

Also, DEI is waning in popularity. Not because of Trump though. Because it doesn't work and it is condescending and it is damning. Academia is terrified of a comeuppance. https://x.com/nils_gilman/status/1814388289400647985. The issue, as we all know, is that when someone fixes the problem, the problem-maker's feelings are subject to sad.

[Kishkumen]

Great. If you’re interested in DEI’s assumed role, then you’re back to starting with these questions:

- How do you prove that a DEI hiring practice is the reason why a person has made the decision that they did?

- What is the mechanism used in conjunction with the above that also rules out the possibility that any other person not deemed a ‘DEI hire’ would or could not have made the same decision from simple poor judgment?

I want to turn this who thing around with the following question:

"Of what use is it for a television network to pose ideologically motivated questions without any evidence backing their implicit suggestions and not even attempt to answer honestly the questions they pose?"

The fundamental problem is the abject failure of ideologically and profit driven infotainment networks to inform and not just inflame their viewers.

Megyn Kelly is junk television. So is, I would say, Joy Reid on MSNBC. So were Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, and Tucker Carlson on FOX, and I am forgetting the name of that rotund liberal fellow who was MSNBC's blue collar blusterer.

CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, OAN, etc., etc., etc. Garbage. A threat to rational thought and politics informed by such. In terms of their garbage quotient, I would reverse the order and make CNN the least dangerous. MSNBC is almost as bad as Fox. Fox is much better than the newer, more Trumpy networks.

But the problem is the medium. The problem is the format. It is, for the most part, a bunch of misleading bilge. Different flavors of nonsense.

Oh, by the way, Lou Dobbs passed away recently. Before the end he was a racist propagandist of the worst kind. Very sad.

[Binger]

Before the end he was a racist propagandist of the worst kind.

This is not supported by facts.