from the whatcha-sayin? dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Bloof with a reply to a commenter who defended the DOGE kids cutting all kinds of useful humanities grants for being “DEI bullshit”:
Giving well paid government jobs to unqualified kids based on their skin colour and willingness to commit crimes for bigots is everything you idiots claim DEI is and does.
In second place, it’s MrWilson with a reaction to some of what we saw in Afroman’s defamation trial:
After the questions about him hurting the feelings of the delicate law enforcement officers, I was half expecting the lawyer to go mask off out of exhaustion and ask, “do you recognize that as people in positions of power and privilege, they’re not used to being questioned or made to feel bad for the the abuses of their power?”
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ve got two more related comments from the debate over the DOGE cuts. First, it’s MrWilson again with some simple questions about the shaky definition of DEI:
So would you say breast cancer research is identity politics? What about starving children? What about renewable energy resources?
Next, it’s Asst DA BA Baracus with a more expansive variant of the question:
A number of these were recording or preserving history, i.e. stuff that actually happened. I tend to think preserving accounts of significant past events, regardless of which group they happened to, is worthwhile.
Is a documentary about historical persecution of people of Irish descent in the US inherently DEI and unworthy of study and dissemination? Or does it have to include, then, persecution of the Swedish, Jewish, African (including originating from Lesotho, Central African Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Bostwana, etc.), French, Catholic, Protestant, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Mexican, […goes on listing 100-200 more countries and territories].
How many people of different backgrounds have to be part of a historical event before it’s not DEI? Or is your contention that every moment before the ever-moving “now” is irrelevant for study or preservation?
In case you use an LLM to help your answer (and especially if you don’t) here’s a prompt: Do not beg the question. Do not engage in non sequiturs or red herrings or One True Scotsman fallacies.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is a quick anonymous quip about Afroman’s victory in court:
I mocked the sheriff, but I did not mock the deputy.
In second place, it’s Stephen T. Stone with his own nearly-as-good joke about the outcome:
The law fought the ’fro and the ’fro won.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ve got a pair of anonymous comments about the trademark fight between pop star Katy Perry and Australian clothing designer Katie Perry. Here’s the first:
Maybe the seamstress should name herself something that can’t be mistaken for any popular musician. For instance, she could brand herself as the Swift Tailor.
And lest you thought that was the only solid pun to be had regarding the situation, here’s the second:
The only way I could see confusion between a musician and a seamstress? It’s the fault of the sewing machine… a Singer.
That’s all for this week, folks!
