@kingsolo4reall@AdamSchefter Fleeced? Giants are the ones going to be sorry. Dexter Lawrence had a down year which is true but he still ranked 9th out of 134 players as a double teamed player. His worth is his ability to draw attention. Bengals won this trade. There’s no replacement for Dexter L.
@SpartanMike96 Everyone yapping like they know they they are talking about. High variability sport. Teams win and lose because a multitude of factors due to the insane amount of personnel on and off the field. You can’t point to any one area and declare that the reasons things were good/bad.
@MrBombastic2525@R3Dchef@steveread1066@nonregemesse My gut tells me DEI advocates it does come from a good place but that doesnt mean the outcomes are going to be good because the intentions were well meaning. Its combating racism with more racism. It's counterintuitive in its attempts.
@MrBombastic2525@R3Dchef@steveread1066@nonregemesse No offense taken. I bet if you ask those same black people who lived through the 60s',70's/90's and are honest and asked the question, Have you felt any improvement within your community from decade to decade? I would bet they would say yes.
@MrBombastic2525@R3Dchef@steveread1066@nonregemesse There isnt anything monolithic in my response. I responded with a multitude of factors that would explain why one person would choose to be a computer analyst vs lets say a makeup artist. It comes down to many reasons. Temperament being the biggest driving factor. Not racism.
@MrBombastic2525@R3Dchef@steveread1066@nonregemesse I dont agree with the framing of your question but ill bite. 1865 was the beginning. 1965 was when legal progress was made. 1970s-1990s was the cultural marriage started to crystalize. I would say right before 9/11/2001. There was the sweet spot for all races.
@MrBombastic2525@R3Dchef@steveread1066@nonregemesse A lot can happen in a century. We were less diverse 100 years ago for one. The problems of 1929 and the problems of 2026 are far removed and i'm sure you would agree we've advanced quite a bit, especially thanks to technology.
@MrBombastic2525@R3Dchef@steveread1066@nonregemesse The problem is no one can prove that is the reason behind employment selection. If someone is denied based on their sex/race then yes that's abhorrent but assuming that as the motivation forthrightly is an error. Thats the core of my issue. It ASSUMES.
@MrBombastic2525@R3Dchef@steveread1066@nonregemesse Racism and sexism will always be with us, however I find it very counterproductive to enforce anti-racism/sexism laws. I don't think people truly understand how pernicious and detrimental that is to the fabric of a free society.
@MrBombastic2525@R3Dchef@steveread1066@nonregemesse Of course not but today is not the 60's. There has been a major over correction going on, I'm sure with good intentions, but those intentions are not taking all factors into consideration. There is a multitude of reasons why employment isnt neat and pretty.
@MrBombastic2525@R3Dchef@steveread1066@nonregemesse I’m not sure there ever needed a correction. We as a society just accepted that premise that unequal representation or skewed demographic representation meant our society is inherently racist and sexist and that explains the disparities. Things are more complicated than that.
@MrBombastic2525@R3Dchef@steveread1066@nonregemesse To be clear I’m not asserting the actress they chose isn’t skilled but rather claiming the very idea than implementing such corrosive criteria not only is insulting to the public but to actors chosen based on immutable characteristics, not based on their talent.
@MrBombastic2525@R3Dchef@steveread1066@nonregemesse I’ve read the fine print. Enforcing racial or sex-based employment quotas in film—such as requiring a fixed 30% demographic threshold to qualify for awards—ironically entrenches the very racism and sexism it claims to oppose.