Soleos

Not defending Subway overall, the price increases are nuts. However that experience of yours is definitely an individual franchise problem, not a "corporate culture" problem.

It's not that they throw a ball around really well, it's that the NBA brings in over 10 billion in annual revenue because of these players. How much are you willing to pay someone to bring in that amount of money?

Looking at it a different way, that would be like a photographer taking a photo of the sandwich and proclaiming "I'm an artist" or a director telling a chef what to make, telling a cinematographer/camera operator how to shoot it, and an editor how to cut it to create a short film of a sandwich and proclaiming "I'm an artist". Art can be made from a series of creative and purposeful decisions that result in a piece of expression. It might not be good art, it might not be effortful art, it might even be unethically made art, but it's not not-art.

Again, if we read it as he literally said that, then sure I'd agree the behaviour is not okay. Given the context of the quote, I'd want more evidence to take that quote literally.

It just reeks to me of him being jealous of people who don't have kids and/or him regretting being a parent?

Perhaps. I don't think there's much here to substantiate that reading though, even with the context. I'd want a bit more evidence if I were to incorporate that into my appraisal of him.

You can judge someone to be morally repugnant without interpreting everything they say/do as an extension of the things that make them repugnant. It doesn't lessen the repugnance.

This has nothing to do with going easy on JD. It has to do with the things we chose to criticize on principle. It's about who we choose to be. You gave two great examples of things we should judge him for. I'm happy to focus on those and the next oppressive thing he says. If you want to be someone who criticizes parents for getting exasperated by their kids, that's your perogative, but that's not me and I don't think people should.

Might be an unpopular opinion While JD has said plenty of horrible things, this reads more like someone relating how they felt in the moment than reciting what was actually said. I'm sure most parents have felt this way at some point. We don't need to make this mole hill into a mountain. There's already a whole mountain range of his shit that's actually egregious.

You're literally advocating for stereotyping people according to those immutable characteristics. Disgusting.

Nice try, but no. That's really not what I was saying. The conversation is about how environmental context (culture, history, positionality) influences experiences and how individuals with different experiences can contribute uniquely.

I thought diversity was strength. Guess it's instead "diversity specifically of the types I define is strength, provided it's my unique definition of strength (read: intellectual homogeneity)".

Diversity has its strengths and weaknesses depending on context. For example ethno nationalism can lead to powerful states of a kind, but as an ideology it is inherently oppressive and dehumanizing, so I'd argue it's ethically wrong. Being a particular race or gender is never ethically wrong, but ideologies certainly can be.

More thinly-veiled bigotry, essentially saying that race and gender determine ideology. Gross.

Again, deliberately misinterpreting the statement. Nobody is talking about race/sex being deterministic of ideology and your little trap conflating social groups and individual identity is transparent and silly.

You fail troll.

1. Differences like race/sex being only "superficial" and therefore unimportant is a disingenuous strawman. These attributes are also associated with substantial differences in experience, epistemologies, and even ideologies (white feminists can differ in ideology from black and Asian feminists), all of which can productively contribute to more and better solutions than if those diversities were not present.

2. Ideological diversity while certainly beneficial, can also hamper collaboration. Especially when one ideology dehumanized or embodies an existential threat to other members of the team. Some shared ideology around shared humanity and collaboration is needed right. Relatedly, a single ideology amongst one group can also be a point of productive focus. For example anti-abortion movements or abolishing slavery.

3. The makeup of the best team for the best jobs depends on the project as well, whether it's a political science textbook, a cross-cultural advertising campaign, or a piece of universal design. A team with some diversity along ideological, cultural, gendered lines while also sharing commonalities can be better equipped to tackle a range of problems by mitigating glaring gaps

4. I don't know why you're drawing this line between ideology, race, and gender. Shit is intersectional.

Here is your example. We have whole institutions dedicated to diversity of ideology. It's called Academia. Diversity of ideology is the OG diversity. It's the vanilla default status quo of diversity.

I don't believe you.

"Don’t we try to categorize everything though"

That sounds like a you problem :P

Enter constructivist relativism

That's a fair point on item selection. You get the major brands that are better about getting their supply chains. So the overall proportion is different, though still a significant problem.

My point was more about buying the same cheap jacket on Amazon as you'd find on Temu or AliExpress, which is what I see most of on Amazon.