>Now wait just one apple-bucking minute, pardner
>You're telling me you went to something called a...college?
>And you paid a hefty amount of bits for some book learning?
>For four years?
>And you're saying most humans don't even get jobs doing what they spent a barrel-full of bits learning about?
>That doesn't make one salt-lick of sense, sugarcube
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 771A4CF673F85E78C3D9EFBBF643A73B-299545.png (292.5 KB, 1280x720, 1703771006684232.png)
Anonymous
No.370241
it gets worse background horse, people are paying for credentials, without which they have no hope of getting a job, since businesses are forbidden by law from deciding for themselves what employee would be valuable for them.
>>370242
>since businesses are forbidden by law from deciding for themselves what employee would be valuable for them
I think it's more that businesses now have the means to soft through thousands of resumes at once, and therefore now look for any and every reason to disqualify candidates, to thin the pile.
>since businesses are forbidden by law from deciding for themselves what employee would be valuable for them
I think it's more that businesses now have the means to soft through thousands of resumes at once, and therefore now look for any and every reason to disqualify candidates, to thin the pile.
>>370243
There is certainly a mismatch between the supply of labor and available jobs(immigration and trade policy being the culprits here), but I imagine that businesses would still like to actually test employees for themselves. This particular regulation also affects businesses only of a certain size, and we see plenty of small businesses just under said threshold.
There is certainly a mismatch between the supply of labor and available jobs(immigration and trade policy being the culprits here), but I imagine that businesses would still like to actually test employees for themselves. This particular regulation also affects businesses only of a certain size, and we see plenty of small businesses just under said threshold.
File (): 2CA34A16EDD7ABFD666C88D8278ED976-22353.jpg (21.8 KB, 505x256, iibrxrurtxu31.jpg)
>>370244
>but I imagine that businesses would still like to actually test employees for themselves
They do, but it's easier if they thin the pile by adding requirements to disqualify applicants, because they have so many to choose from that they'll still find candidates even with bullshit requirements like 5 years of experience for an entry level position. What's left at the end are the most-educated, most experienced candidates who are willing to work for pennies because they have no lives.
>This particular regulation
What particular regulation are you referring to? There are many regulations.
>but I imagine that businesses would still like to actually test employees for themselves
They do, but it's easier if they thin the pile by adding requirements to disqualify applicants, because they have so many to choose from that they'll still find candidates even with bullshit requirements like 5 years of experience for an entry level position. What's left at the end are the most-educated, most experienced candidates who are willing to work for pennies because they have no lives.
>This particular regulation
What particular regulation are you referring to? There are many regulations.
>>370246
What particular regulation are you referring to? There are many regulations.
the doctrine of disparate impact.
What particular regulation are you referring to? There are many regulations.
the doctrine of disparate impact.
>>370262
Ok pal. "Businesses have to ensure that any testing they do reflects no racial differences" isn't a regulation, it just walks, talks, and acts like one, with widespread consequences for society.
> that's a legal theory and philosophy.
What it is, is an unconstitutional and impossible to fulfill fantasy.
Ok pal. "Businesses have to ensure that any testing they do reflects no racial differences" isn't a regulation, it just walks, talks, and acts like one, with widespread consequences for society.
> that's a legal theory and philosophy.
What it is, is an unconstitutional and impossible to fulfill fantasy.
>>370274
I'm referring to where the supreme court decided that innocent until proven guilty was no longer constitutional ala "Despite no evidence of wrongdoing...". You're free to use whatever word you like to describe that.
I'm referring to where the supreme court decided that innocent until proven guilty was no longer constitutional ala "Despite no evidence of wrongdoing...". You're free to use whatever word you like to describe that.
>>370294
do your own research, based on context clues in this thread, and the direct quote provided from the ruling in question.
do your own research, based on context clues in this thread, and the direct quote provided from the ruling in question.
Anonymous
No.370301
File (): BC0C2A5510CC27A97D708463BA91B299-40180.gif (39.2 KB, 200x238, 200w (1).gif)
>>370298
I'm more than capable of doing my own research; what I asked was what you were talking about. I can't read your mind. You said "particular regulation", but you didn't even say what the particular law/case-law was; so I can only come to the conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about.
What a waste of time.
I'm more than capable of doing my own research; what I asked was what you were talking about. I can't read your mind. You said "particular regulation", but you didn't even say what the particular law/case-law was; so I can only come to the conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about.
What a waste of time.
>>370283
If you're referring to the case where the SCOTUS first established the doctrine of disparate impact pertaining to evidence of discrimination, that would be Griggs v. Duke Power Co., which isn't a "particular regulation", but a case law that's sometimes used to refer to a multitude of separate regulations.
>>370298
And after wasting almost an hour researching, I can see it did not include your
>direct quote
of
>"Despite no evidence of wrongdoing..."
Anywhere in the body of the case, nor does it make any mention of innocence until proven guilty in criminal law.
Big waste of my time because you can't help but make shit up and spew misleading word salad instead of saying you don't know.
What it actually does is direct the DOJ to consider the effects of policies and practices to see if they qualify as """discriminatory""" and thus interact with various civil rights regulations. Relevance to the thread being that disparate impact claims could stop businesses that receive money from the government from using hiring practices that might filter out niggers and therefore discourages companies from getting candidates as they wish.
If you're referring to the case where the SCOTUS first established the doctrine of disparate impact pertaining to evidence of discrimination, that would be Griggs v. Duke Power Co., which isn't a "particular regulation", but a case law that's sometimes used to refer to a multitude of separate regulations.
>>370298
And after wasting almost an hour researching, I can see it did not include your
>direct quote
of
>"Despite no evidence of wrongdoing..."
Anywhere in the body of the case, nor does it make any mention of innocence until proven guilty in criminal law.
Big waste of my time because you can't help but make shit up and spew misleading word salad instead of saying you don't know.
What it actually does is direct the DOJ to consider the effects of policies and practices to see if they qualify as """discriminatory""" and thus interact with various civil rights regulations. Relevance to the thread being that disparate impact claims could stop businesses that receive money from the government from using hiring practices that might filter out niggers and therefore discourages companies from getting candidates as they wish.
>>370302
>Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Going to be honest, I thought you were just a bot. Apologies on the quote, I had read that it did in fact appear but it does not. It only has that effect that they were found guilty despite a lack of evidence and required to uphold an impossible standard for which multiple exemptions had to be carved, that is then responsible for:
1)the monopoly on signalling universities enjoy
2)Their subsequent mooning of the price of credentials
3)the ultimate necessity of credentials themselves
I was also wrong about the 15 employees limit, it appears that was struck down 5 years after the law in this particular case.
>Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Going to be honest, I thought you were just a bot. Apologies on the quote, I had read that it did in fact appear but it does not. It only has that effect that they were found guilty despite a lack of evidence and required to uphold an impossible standard for which multiple exemptions had to be carved, that is then responsible for:
1)the monopoly on signalling universities enjoy
2)Their subsequent mooning of the price of credentials
3)the ultimate necessity of credentials themselves
I was also wrong about the 15 employees limit, it appears that was struck down 5 years after the law in this particular case.
Anonymous
No.370305
>>370304
We don't have that persistently apply to posters here. All the spambots are obvious one-off scams that get deleted in minutes. /mlpol/ isn't botnet tier like /pol/.
We don't have that persistently apply to posters here. All the spambots are obvious one-off scams that get deleted in minutes. /mlpol/ isn't botnet tier like /pol/.
Anonymous
No.370432
File (): B70D8803AB1C8704984EF6A42DEFD3CE-8030.png (7.8 KB, 224x224, 1704182370451894.png)
>Well ah'm sorry ta hear that anon
>It certainly doesn't cost a load o' bits to get some top notch book learnin' around here.
>Sweet Apple Acres makes plenty a' bits, and I for one am proud that some of what I earn goes towards helping fillies and colts to learn Equestria's history, and understand the great ponish books, and the theory of magic. Or towards learnin' to play an instrument real pretty. Or even fancy mathematics. Celestia has some mighty fine schools.
>Well sure, there might be one or two ponies who are sour apples about paying Celestia her due, but if they think buying more fancy jacuzzies and whatnot is more important than helping make our foals well-rounded Equestrians, then they have a thing or two to learn about what's important in life.
>Book learnin' may not be my barrel of apples, but it's certainly Twilight's, and we're all MIGHTY proud of all the amazing things she's learned.
>We aren't mighty fond of anarchists 'round these parts, anon. Ave Celestia
>It certainly doesn't cost a load o' bits to get some top notch book learnin' around here.
>Sweet Apple Acres makes plenty a' bits, and I for one am proud that some of what I earn goes towards helping fillies and colts to learn Equestria's history, and understand the great ponish books, and the theory of magic. Or towards learnin' to play an instrument real pretty. Or even fancy mathematics. Celestia has some mighty fine schools.
>Well sure, there might be one or two ponies who are sour apples about paying Celestia her due, but if they think buying more fancy jacuzzies and whatnot is more important than helping make our foals well-rounded Equestrians, then they have a thing or two to learn about what's important in life.
>Book learnin' may not be my barrel of apples, but it's certainly Twilight's, and we're all MIGHTY proud of all the amazing things she's learned.
>We aren't mighty fond of anarchists 'round these parts, anon. Ave Celestia
16 replies | 5 files | 3 UUIDs | Archived