Elon Musk is a fucking Idiot

[Jamiet99uk]

I propose a 12% reduction in the number of Kanban boards. They're annoying and do not efficiency make.

[flash2015]

Various US Government websites are removing photographs and mentions of the aircraft "Enola Gay" (named after the mother of one of the flight crew) because they are afraid to use the word "gay" because of Trump's anti-diversity edicts.

I would like any Trump supporter on this forum to defend this level of ignorance. Please.

FUCK TRUMP

This is the inevitable overshooting (ugh). Doing a keyword search without checking the context is going to delete the wrong things. I am surprised they didn't unleash Grok on it.

I saw this article about the issue here:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/03/07/war-heroes-and-military-firsts-are-among-26000-images-flagged-removal-pentagons-diversity-purge.html

In some cases, photos seemed to be flagged for removal simply because their file included the word ”gay,” including service members with that last name and an image of the B-29 aircraft Enola Gay, which dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II.

Does it mean it was actually deleted...or just put on a list to be deleted (which may get a second level of verification)? How are they getting this info if it is only flagged? Is this coming from a leak? It does sound like there is a second level of verification:

Asked about the database, Pentagon spokesman John Ullyot said in a statement, “We are pleased by the rapid compliance across the Department with the directive removing DEI content from all platforms. In the rare cases that content is removed that is out of the clearly outlined scope of the directive, we instruct components accordingly.”

Also there appears to be some malicious compliance to deliberately make the Trump administration look bad:

The Air Force briefly removed new recruit training courses that included videos of the Tuskegee Airmen soon after Trump’s order. That drew the White House’s ire over “malicious compliance,” and the Air Force quickly reversed the removal.

Mistakes may be happening because they haven't put enough resources onto it:

In the Marine Corps, just one defense civilian is available to do the work. The Marine Corps estimates that person has identified at least 10,000 images for removal — and that does not count more than 1,600 social media sites that have not yet been addressed.

[Jamiet99uk]

They are putting far too much resource into it.

Every cent of taxpayer's money spent removing references to equality and diversity, erasing references to successful women, deleting black people, making gay and lesbian people feel excluded from public services, is a cent wasted.

[MajorMitchell]

Sweetypie Octavious, you may have misrepresented adorable jamiet99uk over the use of the word cunt
It was me who has been a provocative over the use of that word and your evidence actually shows jamiet99uk apologising to.me for using the word cunt, no doubt after I rebuked naughty jamiet99uk

[MajorMitchell]

In cricketing parlance, Octavious, I have picked up your inswinging C~bomb ball on the half volley and driven it through the cover fielders to the boundary.

[flash2015]

If I had seen this 5 years ago, I would have been 10% in agreement with you. After all, who could be upset with DEI? I have been, however, as I have dug deeper I have become increasingly concerned with many of the ideas being forward and many of the implementation details.

For example I find how we use the current use of "systemic racism" framing is incredibly toxic. There are some legitimate reasons to call out "systemic racism" - e.g. redlining which made it hard for African Americans to get home loans. However, at least from my understanding of it, "systemic racism" is being used as an explanation for **any** difference in outcomes between different races/sexes etc. The problem with this is that it is not actually useful in solving the problem, it is about assigning blame. "If African American kids aren't doing as well, it is because white people are racist!" "African Americans are getting shot because cops are racist!". What do you do with that? It isn't really actionable...apart from setting up DEI courses to tell white people how racist they are and they need to do better. These oversimplified explanations also take agency away from people - if they don't do well it is because of "systemic racism", not because of things they also can control.

Then we could get into the changing definitions of the word racism itself. Racism from a left wing academic perspective is "prejudice + power". Essentially this means that people can't be racist against white people because white people have the power. So all sorts of despicable and disgusting stuff can be said against white people because it isn't strictly racism using this definition.

Then you get to issues of quotas and racial/sex preferences. I think these may have been a good idea used in limited quantities, but it has to be used sparingly and time limited. Instead the idea appears to be to make these things permanent which is downright bad policy.

The Biden administration went absolutely bonkers with avert preferences for minorities. The classic case I remember which I thought was nuts was the call for a ban for Menthol cigarettes. In every other country that did this, it was a general good health measure as Menthol cigarettes help fuel addiction. In the US, Biden made the case for banning Menthol cigarettes because it adversely affected African Americans. And the Biden administration followed this knowledge for policy after policy after policy (e.g. another one being minorities most affected by climate change...or minorities need to be singled out for help from the affects of climate change). Incredibly divisive framing.

I don't really think those on the left understand how bad it looks when people perceive that some are being seen by the government as more worthy than others. The poor white person gets looked over for a scholarship or a job vs a middle class African American. It is understandable the resentment here. Why would you vote for a party which supports this "reverse racism"? The right way to make preferences longer term is to base them on class rather than preferred identities. If those of a specific identity/race/sex are poorer than others, then they will automatically get more help by basing these programs on class/poverty without raising the divisive animus. And that also would be closer to what I believe "the left" should be concentrating on, rather than identity politics. My wife (who is a communist) and I both are in agreement here.

I am just scratching the surface here on this. I can go on for pages and pages on how DEI and the way we have talked about race/identity has gone completely off the rails. I haven't touched on the toxic ideas of "white privilege", "white fragility" and the wildly overused and abused supposed "white supremacy" which apparently even corrupts maths education.

Thankfully there is a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel for Democrats. Michigan Governor Whitmer raised the issue how women are outnumbering men in higher education by 2-1 (I am not sure if the 2-1 is overall or just specifically in this Michigan Reconnect program she indicates):

https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/transcript-whitmer-2025-state-of-the-state-address/

She recognizes the problem and shows empathy for those affected...but she doesn't go and claim "misandry" because the outcomes are different. She isn't creating racial quotas for men or anything silly like that but taking a first step in helping by improving outreach to encourage more men to take advantage of higher education and help programs.

It is a tiny step but it gives me some hope that Democrats may be starting to learn their lesson here.

[Jamiet99uk]

Sweetypie Octavious, you may have misrepresented adorable jamiet99uk over the use of the word cunt
It was me who has been a provocative over the use of that word and your evidence actually shows jamiet99uk apologising to.me for using the word cunt, no doubt after I rebuked naughty jamiet99uk

Sorry darlings

[Jamiet99uk]

If I had seen this 5 years ago, I would have been 10% in agreement with you. After all, who could be upset with DEI? I have been, however, as I have dug deeper I have become increasingly concerned with many of the ideas being forward and many of the implementation details.

For example I find how we use the current use of "systemic racism" framing is incredibly toxic. There are some legitimate reasons to call out "systemic racism" - e.g. redlining which made it hard for African Americans to get home loans. However, at least from my understanding of it, "systemic racism" is being used as an explanation for **any** difference in outcomes between different races/sexes etc. The problem with this is that it is not actually useful in solving the problem, it is about assigning blame. "If African American kids aren't doing as well, it is because white people are racist!" "African Americans are getting shot because cops are racist!". What do you do with that? It isn't really actionable...apart from setting up DEI courses to tell white people how racist they are and they need to do better. These oversimplified explanations also take agency away from people - if they don't do well it is because of "systemic racism", not because of things they also can control.

Then we could get into the changing definitions of the word racism itself. Racism from a left wing academic perspective is "prejudice + power". Essentially this means that people can't be racist against white people because white people have the power. So all sorts of despicable and disgusting stuff can be said against white people because it isn't strictly racism using this definition.

Then you get to issues of quotas and racial/sex preferences. I think these may have been a good idea used in limited quantities, but it has to be used sparingly and time limited. Instead the idea appears to be to make these things permanent which is downright bad policy.

The Biden administration went absolutely bonkers with avert preferences for minorities. The classic case I remember which I thought was nuts was the call for a ban for Menthol cigarettes. In every other country that did this, it was a general good health measure as Menthol cigarettes help fuel addiction. In the US, Biden made the case for banning Menthol cigarettes because it adversely affected African Americans. And the Biden administration followed this knowledge for policy after policy after policy (e.g. another one being minorities most affected by climate change...or minorities need to be singled out for help from the affects of climate change). Incredibly divisive framing.

I don't really think those on the left understand how bad it looks when people perceive that some are being seen by the government as more worthy than others. The poor white person gets looked over for a scholarship or a job vs a middle class African American. It is understandable the resentment here. Why would you vote for a party which supports this "reverse racism"? The right way to make preferences longer term is to base them on class rather than preferred identities. If those of a specific identity/race/sex are poorer than others, then they will automatically get more help by basing these programs on class/poverty without raising the divisive animus. And that also would be closer to what I believe "the left" should be concentrating on, rather than identity politics. My wife (who is a communist) and I both are in agreement here.

I am just scratching the surface here on this. I can go on for pages and pages on how DEI and the way we have talked about race/identity has gone completely off the rails. I haven't touched on the toxic ideas of "white privilege", "white fragility" and the wildly overused and abused supposed "white supremacy" which apparently even corrupts maths education.

Thankfully there is a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel for Democrats. Michigan Governor Whitmer raised the issue how women are outnumbering men in higher education by 2-1 (I am not sure if the 2-1 is overall or just specifically in this Michigan Reconnect program she indicates):

https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/transcript-whitmer-2025-state-of-the-state-address/

She recognizes the problem and shows empathy for those affected...but she doesn't go and claim "misandry" because the outcomes are different. She isn't creating racial quotas for men or anything silly like that but taking a first step in helping by improving outreach to encourage more men to take advantage of higher education and help programs.

It is a tiny step but it gives me some hope that Democrats may be starting to learn their lesson here.

You won't like me saying this, but from here you sound like an angry white man upset that his privilege was challenged, and pleased that Trump is re-asserting the dominance of white men.

Poor whites voting for Trump is a joke, because while Trump represents white people, he is about as far from being the representative of the poor as you could imagine. Shifting the tax burden from the rich ONTO the poor is a key part of Trump's programme.

[flash2015]

You won't like me saying this, but from here you sound like an angry white man upset that his privilege was challenged, and pleased that Trump is re-asserting the dominance of white men.

Poor whites voting for Trump is a joke, because while Trump represents white people, he is about as far from being the representative of the poor as you could imagine. Shifting the tax burden from the rich ONTO the poor is a key part of Trump's programme.

I understand where you are coming from. I have heard your argument before...and I have heard the "equality feels like oppression" nonsense too. All I see now is that the side which I thought was for empathy only really has empathy for part of the population...everyone else is evil/"privileged" and not worthy of your consideration. I was like that too at one point until I realized the other side of this does actually have some legitimate concerns.

If you don't want people to vote for Trump, stop giving people a reason to! Find a way to improve the lives of the poor without all the toxicity and hate. And you are ignoring a big thing which Trump has been doing which Democrats weren't doing. Midwest state manufacturing (the midwest has a lot of the swing states, a lot of those states are the worst hit by fentanyl) was hollowed out by increased globalization and trade...and both sides ignored this pain for DECADES. Trump is at least pretending he cares and this is what is driving a lot of his trade policy. The Democrats and many on the left (like yourself) continue to look down on these people...why are these people voting for Trump? Are they stupid or evil? And then wonder why they are losing to him. You have the answer. You just don't want to hear it.

[flash2015]

All you are really showing with your "angry white man" nonsense is that you don't really have an argument. Some of this stuff is just so wrong, it is impossible to justify via a rational argument. So you resort to ad hominems instead...or you will play "motte and bailey" games. I have seen all these tactics before. This has made me so disillusioned with the left.

[Jamiet99uk]

I understand where you are coming from. I have heard your argument before...and I have heard the "equality feels like oppression" nonsense too. All I see now is that the side which I thought was for empathy only really has empathy for part of the population...everyone else is evil/"privileged" and not worthy of your consideration. I was like that too at one point until I realized the other side of this does actually have some legitimate concerns.

If you think I'm claiming white people are evil, I am not saying that.
If you think privilege is being equated with evil, you are wrong.

Poor whites in the USA are an interesting demographic because they are disadvantaged by being poor, and yet they also experience privilege because they are white.

The really interesting thing is that these people live in a country (the United States) where for well over a century, the entire system was set up to benefit the white man over all other groups, and yet despite that historic privilege, they are still poor. The reason for that is capitalism. Generations of poor whites have actually grown up under a system which is intended to benefit a tiny minority of wealthy white people - the group which includes Elon Musk and Donald Trump.

Nonetheless, a poor white man still enjoys a level of privilege over, for instance, a poor white woman, because he is a white man. He still enjoys a level of privilege over a poor black person of, frankly, any gender. Calling out this historic privilege is not the same as saying "all white men are evil" and I have never claimed such a thing. That is either a mistaken assumption you have made, or a strawman. For goodness sake, I am a 43 year old white man myself. But I recognise my privilege. I acknoweldge it as potentially problematic. And I try to do something about it where and when I can.

If you don't want people to vote for Trump, stop giving people a reason to! Find a way to improve the lives of the poor without all the toxicity and hate.

I would love to improve the lives of the poor, of all races and creeds. The way to do that is to move away from capitalism. Unfortunately, there is little appetite for that in the USA because the entire US system is designed to brainwash Americans that capitalism promises utopia (it doesn't; it promises wage slavery), and that socialism is evil. I disagree.

And you are ignoring a big thing which Trump has been doing which Democrats weren't doing. Midwest state manufacturing (the midwest has a lot of the swing states, a lot of those states are the worst hit by fentanyl) was hollowed out by increased globalization and trade...and both sides ignored this pain for DECADES. Trump is at least pretending he cares and this is what is driving a lot of his trade policy. The Democrats and many on the left (like yourself) continue to look down on these people...why are these people voting for Trump? Are they stupid or evil? And then wonder why they are losing to him. You have the answer. You just don't want to hear it.

But you acknowledge that he is pretending. He is not sincere. His trade policies will not bring employment back to the rust belt. He himself has personally benefited from globalisation and modern capitalism. Trump's tax policies will make poor white people poorer while increasing the wealth of millionaires and billionaires.

You are right that the Democrats have failed to offer a coherent platform that appeals to poor white people. That is because the Democratic Party is also a centre-right party controlled by wealthy white people and devoted to the American model of capitalism. I am sorry for America. It has, for most of my lifetime, offered its voters a very poor choice.

[Jamiet99uk]

All you are really showing with your "angry white man" nonsense is that you don't really have an argument. Some of this stuff is just so wrong, it is impossible to justify via a rational argument. So you resort to ad hominems instead...or you will play "motte and bailey" games. I have seen all these tactics before. This has made me so disillusioned with the left.

In the post before you said "I understand where you are coming from", and then immediately after you are shouting and me and saying I am so illogical and irrational that it is impossible to talk to me.

Which is it?

[flash2015]

All you are really showing with your "angry white man" nonsense is that you don't really have an argument. Some of this stuff is just so wrong, it is impossible to justify via a rational argument. So you resort to ad hominems instead...or you will play "motte and bailey" games. I have seen all these tactics before. This has made me so disillusioned with the left.

In the post before you said "I understand where you are coming from", and then immediately after you are shouting and me and saying I am so illogical and irrational that it is impossible to talk to me.

Which is it?

I indicated in the first message that I had heard your rhetoric before many times.

I am clarifying in the second message that your method of attack specifically - attacking me rather than attacking the argument is invalid. I am sure you were trying to get a rise out of me and I would get derailed...but I wasn't swallowing that bait. What is so difficult to understand about that?

[Jamiet99uk]

I am engaging with your arguments, Flash.

[flash2015]

If you think I'm claiming white people are evil, I am not saying that.
If you think privilege is being equated with evil, you are wrong.

Poor whites in the USA are an interesting demographic because they are disadvantaged by being poor, and yet they also experience privilege because they are white.

How are poor white people just getting by or living out of a trailer "privileged"? I think you are going to have a hard time convincing these people of that.

The really interesting thing is that these people live in a country (the United States) where for well over a century, the entire system was set up to benefit the white man over all other groups, and yet despite that historic privilege, they are still poor. The reason for that is capitalism. Generations of poor whites have actually grown up under a system which is intended to benefit a tiny minority of wealthy white people - the group which includes Elon Musk and Donald Trump.

Undoubtably the US has had some horrible history from slavery to Jim Crowe laws to various massacres that happened in the first half of the 20th century like the Tulsa Race Massacre. We should never forget these past injustices.

But the US is also a story of overcoming these injustices and improving like through the civil rights movement in the 60s. I believe many on the left try to claim it is still some racist shithole...but that is not even remotely based in reality. I would argue, especially given the diversity in the US, that it is one of the least racist countries on the planet.

Nonetheless, a poor white man still enjoys a level of privilege over, for instance, a poor white woman, because he is a white man. He still enjoys a level of privilege over a poor black person of, frankly, any gender. Calling out this historic privilege is not the same as saying "all white men are evil" and I have never claimed such a thing. That is either a mistaken assumption you have made, or a strawman. For goodness sake, I am a 43 year old white man myself. But I recognise my privilege. I acknoweldge it as potentially problematic. And I try to do something about it where and when I can.

I would argue this "privilege" idea is far more nuanced and less important than you are making out. For example women have their own "privileges" over men - for example usually they won't get drafted, or they are more likely to get a warning than a ticket in a traffic stop, a crying woman would get treated much better than a distressed man, a man is much more likely to be treated like a threat than a woman, men are much more likely to be in gaol than women. We can have the same discussions around white versus black too. This is not all a one way street. There is no strict privilege hierarchy as you allege.

By over-concentrating on the "privilege" part rather than the "poor" part, I think you have lost the plot. The poor white man, white woman, black man and woman should all be on the same side. Instead you are dividing them by saying the privilege part is more important...and saying the white people aren't as worthy of help because of their alleged "privilege". There still seems to be surprise that this message isn't going down well. I can't think of a bigger own goal on the left than this attitude.

My wife is a communist and she has been involved with many of the socialist/progressive organizations in NYC (Workers World Party, PSL, People's Forum). She is also pissed on how all these organizations have got infected with identity politics instead of the original class struggle ideas.

But you acknowledge that he is pretending. He is not sincere. His trade policies will not bring employment back to the rust belt. He himself has personally benefited from globalisation and modern capitalism. Trump's tax policies will make poor white people poorer while increasing the wealth of millionaires and billionaires.

I am a big believer in globalization and the idea of comparative advantage. Tariffs are the antithesis of what I want (I am hoping that our next car would be a Chinese electric one because I don't want to buy an overpriced Tesla).

I think he may have some success in bringing some manufacturing back but it is going to come at a cost. We had a golden age of low inflation for a couple of decades which I believe was primarily due to globalization. This deglobalization will cause inflation which will also mean higher interest rates. Global growth and following on from than that overall living standards will likely be lower as a result longer term.

You are right that the Democrats have failed to offer a coherent platform that appeals to poor white people. That is because the Democratic Party is also a centre-right party controlled by wealthy white people and devoted to the American model of capitalism. I am sorry for America. It has, for most of my lifetime, offered its voters a very poor choice.

Making real change is hard, identity politics is much easier. It is crazy that we still don't have a public option for healthcare in 2025. Democrats have given up on this. Instead they have gone all in on the identity politics to look progressive. Their big donors can show how wonderful they are by throwing up a progress pride flag at the right time of year or setting up identity support groups in their company. And nothing really changes, unfortunately.

[MajorMitchell]

Please do not regard Fabulous flash as an angry (white) man

I am the angry old chap and don't fucking forget that.like a bunch of fkn cork brained clowns.

Trumptoad and JdV are worse than a pair of drunken whores at a wedding imho
Grifters and fkn Fascists
Elon Musk is a most evil blighter and it would be preferable to see him bankrupted and /or executed

I'm hoping tenacious around the world hit Tesla cars with punitive taxes and abandon Starlink

[MajorMitchell]

Tenacious = should have been the nation's of the world

[MajorMitchell]

Congratulations on marrying a COMMUNIST flash
That must be a lot of fun, engaging in mutual espionage and intermittently making a swap of prisoners.
Is your delightful wife any particular type of Communist?
A Leninist, Trotskyite, Stalinist or Revisionist?
I cannot imagine her being a Putinista but I have a limited imagination
Do you engage in Proxy Wars using the kids & pets?
Who do you represent?
The Swiss Banks?
Capitalism personified?

I have overlooked huge opportunities to seduce Marxists and other Communists
Do lady Communists really keep a Hammer & Scythe in their handbags?

[MajorMitchell]

Or did you "go all the way" Flash and marry a Maoist?

[Jamiet99uk]

Is it just me or is MM's current personae modelled on that guy who was arrested for eating a meal, a succulent Chinese meal?