Ryzen 1700. It's about the same price as the 2600K was when it launched but you get twice as many cores and threads. It won't overclock as well as a 2600K, but the performance per clock is going to be slightly better in most cases. Really though, a 2600K is still going to be a fine CPU and unless you have any real need to upgrade you can stick with it. The 2600K also has onboard graphics that the Ryzen CPU lacks if that's a deal breakerl.
Intel sat on their hands for multiple generations while AMD had nothing to offer and now they're getting bit in the ass now that they have to compete again. They really should have made 6-core mainstream parts several generations ago.
I don't think it's overly fishy as both Amazon and Tesla aren't bringing in much money and have a lot of their value based on potential future returns. I think only recently did Amazon have a net profit over the history of the company because they were taking losses for such a long time or constantly reinvesting a lot of their revenue into new ventures. Tesla is even earlier in the same type of path and I'm not even sure if they've had any profitable quarters.
Does Antifa even have a website though? Admittedly I didn't try to look very hard. The closest I saw was a Twitter account that was clearly against their organization despite claiming to be the official antifa account. The only other link I saw that looked relevant was to a Facebook page.
Also, pushing people into the shadows is hardly desirable. It's basically just cordoning them off into their own little echo chamber. Just because you push hatred out of your sight doesn't magically cause it to cease to exist.
The Ugly: Government agencies now have a valid excuse to obtain funding for exponentially increasing the number of exit nodes under their control.
I don't quite get this argument. Neo-Nazis are suddenly a valid excuse when child porn, illegal drugs, or arms dealing weren't? I mean half of the country likes their guns, even more like their drugs (even in they won't publicly admit it), but I don't think anyone is going to stick up for the kiddie diddlers. Even the Neo-Nazis have a better reputation than they do.
And because it's a vaccine made by genetically modifying a plant, deploying it will automatically eliminate Luddites from the population. Scientific progress will become possible again, even in Europe and California. I think GMO labeling is a rotten idea, but just this once, let's put a big red USES THE GMO PROCESS label in each vial to make sure.
Yeah, but it's still Vegan friendly. Can we find a way to do this with cows instead?
There seems to be some limits. We don't want companies refusing services to gays or muslims or minorities.
I think the free market takes care of that problem. It's just bad business to refuse potential customers. You can get away with it to some degree if that particular group you're refusing service to is small and no one else cares about them at all, but that's hardly the case. If a business refused service to gays or Muslims (both small groups in the U.S.) they don't just lose those customers, they also lose any customers who disagree with their policy of refusing those customers. You can't on one hand complain about the prevalence of social justice activists, but then also suggest that none exist to vote with their wallets. But the reverse is true just as well. You can't think that people who want to make social change are incapable of influencing the market.
In the past one of the biggest arguments against this notion was that it's difficult for people to have the kind of information to make these informed decisions, but in today's world it's almost the opposite. We have so much information and a lot of it coming at us faster than we can process. We're practically drowning in it and it's almost necessary to spend more time filtering and evaluating that information than it is finding or accessing it.
You can't really legislate morality though, which I feel all of this is an attempt to do and only just wastes time. You probably don't have to look very hard to find a club that bans certain kinds of dress, which is just a contrived way of saying "no blacks". If someone really wants to keep a certain group of people away, they'll find a legal means of doing so, because the law cannot be proactive enough to prevent such from happening without being outright tyrannical. It's better to just let racists, anti-semites, and other bigots be themselves and to exercise your own free choice to not do business with them. In a world of things like Yelp it's pretty easy to get information even if you're in a new place and don't know any of the people or the local establishments.
Well you (or anyone else for that matter) is free to try to build monoliths out of anything, but I'm also free to think you're an idiot for doing so. You can't stop people from making bad arguments, you can only try to train yourself to spot them and reject them as they occur.
What it is though, is inaccurate and unfair.
Life isn't fair though, so quit bitching about it. You get to post on the internet instead of slowly dying in a diamond mine in a country that largely doesn't even have electricity. If your biggest problem in life is that the media or businesses aren't perfectly objective, I think that you've got it pretty good on the whole. But if you're really that upset about it, start your own media organization. There is nothing outside of your own control that's stopping you from doing so.
It's a private company and they should have freedom of association. People like to think its a one-way street where the company suddenly has all this power, but you are just as free to boycott or not associate with companies that take actions or hold positions that you do not support.
Crowdfunding sites aren't the only way for others to support individuals. Even before the internet existed, I remember plenty of local fundraisers at churches or through other organizations like the VFW back in the day to raise money for people who had fallen on hard times or experienced other financial hardships. Those were mostly for people who were diagnosed with cancer or had a spouse die suddenly or tragically instead of some skinhead scum driving a car into a crowd of people, but that hardly matters. People were able to raise money for other people long before sites like kickstarter or indiegogo existed. I think they'll still be able to manage if they really want to do so.
That's looking at the wrong statistics. What you'd want to consider is police shootings per encounter with police in order to see if there are any differences. Here's a study that does an excellent Baysian analysis of the data, which does show that black people are being shot by police at a greater rate than other racial groups.
It should be noted that this doesn't control for a lot of other factors that typically factor in to likelihood to commit crime such as socioeconomic status or family status. Being poor and from a single-parent household are two of the largest contributors to disposition towards criminal acts and these conditions are disproportionately seen in inner-city black communities. Those factors explain why blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Being black has almost nothing (there is still some unexplained parts of the gap between blacks and other groups, but that may just mean there is some factor not being controlled for.) to do with committing crime.
I think it's pretty hard to target the Black Lives Matter group because its not really a group as a whole, but a collective of smaller groups that have almost no connection other than they operate under the same banner. It's very similar to the group Anonymous in that there really isn't any central command and anyone at all can decide that they want to operate under the banner.
When you have a structure like that, it's really hard to treat them as a monolith. For example, one city's BLM decided to have a cookout with their local police to try to have a friendly dialog and voice their concerns. Even if you're generally against the movement as a whole, it's pretty hard to condemn trying to come together on good terms and build understanding. On the other hand it's hard to support the BLM member who has allegedly defrauded the University of Toronto for almost $300,000 dollars even if you generally support the movement as a whole.
In general, most things are a mixed bag, but typically you're dealing with an entity that is ultimately answerable to a single person or a small group of individuals so you can still form a cohesive opinion of the whole, but I don't know if that's really possible with BLM since it's completely decentralized. I suppose it's possible to argue that the "good" parts of BLM should rebrand or distance themselves from the "bad" parts, but as a brand BLM is attractive under the idea that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Even if you are one of those "good" parts of the movement, you can use the negative publicity as a foil to highlight the positive of your own particular subgroup within the movement.
I'm not sure if I like that particular line of reasoning. If it was a website solely for the purpose of organizing riots okay, but if it's mostly non-violent protest, I think it's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The government clearly needs to tread carefully here and I believe that if they want to serve a warrant, they should need to have it very narrowly defined for specific IP addresses or a very small range of them as may be necessary.
Does feeling bad about feeling worse because you're feeling bad about feeling bad also make you feel worse? This sounds like a vicious cycle in a way, so where's the bottom? Is it being goth and trying to embrace beauty in pain or something like that, and if so is the cure worse than the disease?
I'm not really sure why you're being moderated flamebait. You're the first person in any of these threads (at least that I've seen) who's provided any evidence (whether its good or not is another argument) to try to refute the memo/manifesto. Even, if like me, you agree with the science behind the manifesto, it's bad to down-mod someone just based on presenting something to the contrary. If you think its bad evidence, point out why.
If you down-mod someone just because it doesn't agree with your point of view it hardly incentivizes people to have a conversation. I've seen a lot of other people claim that they're sick of being called sexist for agreeing with science, but if you just down-mod people who try to post evidence or reasons to support their own different view, they're just going to give up and resort to name-calling, etc. that people have been claiming not to like.
I didn't save a link to it and couldn't find it with a quick Google search, but I once read an article that speculated that this was a partial reason for why Islamic terrorists commit such a disproportionate number of attacks. The argument was because Islam permits a man to have up to four wives that there will always be a shortage of access to mates for men, especially those who are less well off. Add to that research suggesting that in impoverished men that crime (or in this case terrorism) is viewed as a way to obtain status along with a religion that's going to make it illegal to have prostitution or porn or any chance of sex and it does seem plausible.
It's been a while since I read this, so I don't know how well it's backed up by evidence so it may just be an interesting hypothesis.
So if a black person claimed that they had personally never experienced racism, it must also mean that it doesn't exist? Let's see how it scans for fun:
Black males are not oppressed. I am a black male living and working in one of those supposedly terrible conservative places, run by righties, and I have never faced meaningful discrimination. I have never been in, seen, or heard of a workplace that intentionally tried to treat black males badly. I know a lot of conservative republicans, and none of them want black males to be treated badly.
The people I see complaining about the treatment of black males are people trying to invent a villain to blame their failures on.
While I'm not going to suggest that racism doesn't exist (there are plenty of scientific studies or statistical analysis of data that have found racial bias exists or cannot explain race-based gaps for different outcomes) I would argue that the people on both sides who are creating or perpetuating a victim narrative should just fuck off because they're not doing anything to help.
You know, if you replace "white male" with "Muslim" and this recent attack with one of the ones that happened in London over the past several months, you'd sound a lot like many of the people at that rally this weekend. I kind of hope this was some attempt at satire that didn't go over well.
Jobs was absolute shit during his first tenure with Apple. It was only after he got canned and gained some perspective and spent time maturing that he became an okay CEO, and I think a lot of his success during his second tenure was realizing that while he was good (and not perfect) at product vision and marketing, there were a lot of other parts of the company that were better left to more qualified people and that he should probably leave it to them rather than always trying to do things his way.
Maybe this guy is the same and needs to get tossed out. When you're on top, its easy to get this false sense of everything being a direct result of your own actions and dismissing all of the other factors that contributed to that success. Finding out you're not as special as you think is one of those experiences that can humble you a bit and let you grow as a person.
If you're going to attempt to have more employees of category X in your company than exist naturally in the available labor pool, then you're going to have to lower hiring standards. The only ways you don't is if you assume people in category X are more skilled on average or if you pay higher wages to people in category X so you can maintain the same level of quality but draw from the best individuals among category X. I suspect that the people who disagree with what the memo/manifesto had to say are going to argue that in favor of the first being true as it directly contradicts the notion that biology doesn't play a role, and probably would reject the second as well because it's going to result in a perception of non-equal pay based on lack of merit, unless all of the category X people are more skilled than everyone else who's not in category X.
I just don't see any other way to accomplish this without lowering the bar. Say you ran a company and only wanted to hire people who are left handed (about 10% of the population, but as an interesting aside it is estimated that men are more likely to be left-handed than women for whatever reason) and that for the job you are hiring people, dominant hand plays no role in actual performance (so we're not hiring for a baseball team). How could you not reduce hiring standards if you're actively ignoring some 90% (this assumes left and right-handed people are equally likely to apply for the job) of the labor pool for artificial reasons?
I think some people just want to jump on this argument or line of thinking because it goes against their ideas of increasing diversity, but if you stop and think about it, it also supports diversity outcomes. If you were only hiring right-handed people it also means that your company is ignoring qualified individuals in the labor pool for the same reason. Sure in this particular case, it's a smaller part of the pool so you might not have to lower standards as much, but anyone who is discriminating against any minority group is actively hurting themselves by ignoring skilled workers. Interestingly, the same is true for other aspects of the memo. If women are more likely to have some attribute (whether physical or personality) than men and having a diversity across that attribute is valuable or improves outcomes in some way, then not hiring women makes it more difficult to have employees with that attribute.
But back to the central point, please let me know if there's some obvious approach by which you can discriminate in favor of some category of employees in excess of their representation in the labor pool without lowering standards or paying a higher wage, because I can't think of one. If you really want to see more people of category X in some job you'll need to address the number of people in the labor pool (which is probably a tangled mess of all manner of underlying factors both biological and social and not always easily solved) otherwise attempting to hire people disproportionately is just a bad move, much like trying to put the roof up before erecting any of the walls or laying the foundation.
I think that the free market is just as capable of handling it. If your bakery won't sell cakes to homosexual couples that's one more sale for the competition. Also you need to consider that a large number of people who aren't homosexual themselves will find it distasteful for someone to discriminate against them and will likewise take their business elsewhere.
I'm not going to advocate for a lack of all government regulation and I do believe that any entity that takes any form of government money or receives a special tax break should lose any ability to discriminate in who they do business with (for any reason at all) as their business is being funded by the public, which likely includes that very person they would wish to discriminate against. I suppose we could get into ugly edge cases involving foreign tourists, guest workers, or other non-citizen entities, but I'm not sure that changes the overall rationale by much.
If those companies really didn't want to do business with them, then I don't believe they should be forced to do so. However, you have to understand that a business taking this kind of response is going to open themselves up to similar problems in the future. At first you kick out whatever group is the most vile and that everyone else hates and no one has a problem with it, but sooner or later there's going to be another group that most (but not all) people hate and demands for the company not to do business with them either. Businesses are just as loathe to find themselves in that position as they are to be in one where they have an unpopular client.
However, those companies may not even get to make that choice. At some point there are some common carrier restrictions placed on the companies as a part of government regulations. The same ability that would allow them to discriminate against white supremacists would also allow them to decide they don't want to provide bandwidth for Netflix either. You can't build a set of rules that have an application based on good and bad. Sure you might argue that when you get to define good that it works out the way you want, but when the Nazis (or other similar groups) got to define good it really sucked for a lot of people.
Your average man or woman on the street probably wouldn't, but a Cambodian ex-pat would definitely know who Pol Pot is. Similarly there are probably a sizable percentage of Americans who don't know who Fidel Castro is either, but I wouldn't bet you'll find many of them among the Cuban American population.
Because there aren't any banners they can rally under that both have some degree of similarity to what they believe and won. Ethnic purism as a movement doesn't work because it makes some lazy generalizations that aren't true (reality doesn't care about your incorrect assumptions) and the people who tend to espouse it tend to be on the left side of the bell curve when it comes to mental faculties. It's always probably always something that will rear its ugly head, but it's just not a successful strategy so it doesn't produce winners.
Are CBS journalists fascists now too? The problem with groups that condone violence against anyone, even people limited to some smaller group or part of the population, is that eventually the definition of that group will change and the lines will blur.
Slashdot Mirror
Ryzen 1700. It's about the same price as the 2600K was when it launched but you get twice as many cores and threads. It won't overclock as well as a 2600K, but the performance per clock is going to be slightly better in most cases. Really though, a 2600K is still going to be a fine CPU and unless you have any real need to upgrade you can stick with it. The 2600K also has onboard graphics that the Ryzen CPU lacks if that's a deal breakerl.
Intel sat on their hands for multiple generations while AMD had nothing to offer and now they're getting bit in the ass now that they have to compete again. They really should have made 6-core mainstream parts several generations ago.
Well that's disappointing. I was planning to take whatever they had and just tack an "on the internet" to the end. I could have cornered the market.
I don't think it's overly fishy as both Amazon and Tesla aren't bringing in much money and have a lot of their value based on potential future returns. I think only recently did Amazon have a net profit over the history of the company because they were taking losses for such a long time or constantly reinvesting a lot of their revenue into new ventures. Tesla is even earlier in the same type of path and I'm not even sure if they've had any profitable quarters.
Does Antifa even have a website though? Admittedly I didn't try to look very hard. The closest I saw was a Twitter account that was clearly against their organization despite claiming to be the official antifa account. The only other link I saw that looked relevant was to a Facebook page.
Also, pushing people into the shadows is hardly desirable. It's basically just cordoning them off into their own little echo chamber. Just because you push hatred out of your sight doesn't magically cause it to cease to exist.
The Ugly: Government agencies now have a valid excuse to obtain funding for exponentially increasing the number of exit nodes under their control.
I don't quite get this argument. Neo-Nazis are suddenly a valid excuse when child porn, illegal drugs, or arms dealing weren't? I mean half of the country likes their guns, even more like their drugs (even in they won't publicly admit it), but I don't think anyone is going to stick up for the kiddie diddlers. Even the Neo-Nazis have a better reputation than they do.
And because it's a vaccine made by genetically modifying a plant, deploying it will automatically eliminate Luddites from the population. Scientific progress will become possible again, even in Europe and California. I think GMO labeling is a rotten idea, but just this once, let's put a big red USES THE GMO PROCESS label in each vial to make sure.
Yeah, but it's still Vegan friendly. Can we find a way to do this with cows instead?
There seems to be some limits. We don't want companies refusing services to gays or muslims or minorities.
I think the free market takes care of that problem. It's just bad business to refuse potential customers. You can get away with it to some degree if that particular group you're refusing service to is small and no one else cares about them at all, but that's hardly the case. If a business refused service to gays or Muslims (both small groups in the U.S.) they don't just lose those customers, they also lose any customers who disagree with their policy of refusing those customers. You can't on one hand complain about the prevalence of social justice activists, but then also suggest that none exist to vote with their wallets. But the reverse is true just as well. You can't think that people who want to make social change are incapable of influencing the market.
In the past one of the biggest arguments against this notion was that it's difficult for people to have the kind of information to make these informed decisions, but in today's world it's almost the opposite. We have so much information and a lot of it coming at us faster than we can process. We're practically drowning in it and it's almost necessary to spend more time filtering and evaluating that information than it is finding or accessing it.
You can't really legislate morality though, which I feel all of this is an attempt to do and only just wastes time. You probably don't have to look very hard to find a club that bans certain kinds of dress, which is just a contrived way of saying "no blacks". If someone really wants to keep a certain group of people away, they'll find a legal means of doing so, because the law cannot be proactive enough to prevent such from happening without being outright tyrannical. It's better to just let racists, anti-semites, and other bigots be themselves and to exercise your own free choice to not do business with them. In a world of things like Yelp it's pretty easy to get information even if you're in a new place and don't know any of the people or the local establishments.
As a group no, but some of their members are pretty damned hateful.
What it is though, is inaccurate and unfair.
Life isn't fair though, so quit bitching about it. You get to post on the internet instead of slowly dying in a diamond mine in a country that largely doesn't even have electricity. If your biggest problem in life is that the media or businesses aren't perfectly objective, I think that you've got it pretty good on the whole. But if you're really that upset about it, start your own media organization. There is nothing outside of your own control that's stopping you from doing so.
It's a private company and they should have freedom of association. People like to think its a one-way street where the company suddenly has all this power, but you are just as free to boycott or not associate with companies that take actions or hold positions that you do not support.
Crowdfunding sites aren't the only way for others to support individuals. Even before the internet existed, I remember plenty of local fundraisers at churches or through other organizations like the VFW back in the day to raise money for people who had fallen on hard times or experienced other financial hardships. Those were mostly for people who were diagnosed with cancer or had a spouse die suddenly or tragically instead of some skinhead scum driving a car into a crowd of people, but that hardly matters. People were able to raise money for other people long before sites like kickstarter or indiegogo existed. I think they'll still be able to manage if they really want to do so.
That's looking at the wrong statistics. What you'd want to consider is police shootings per encounter with police in order to see if there are any differences. Here's a study that does an excellent Baysian analysis of the data, which does show that black people are being shot by police at a greater rate than other racial groups.
It should be noted that this doesn't control for a lot of other factors that typically factor in to likelihood to commit crime such as socioeconomic status or family status. Being poor and from a single-parent household are two of the largest contributors to disposition towards criminal acts and these conditions are disproportionately seen in inner-city black communities. Those factors explain why blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Being black has almost nothing (there is still some unexplained parts of the gap between blacks and other groups, but that may just mean there is some factor not being controlled for.) to do with committing crime.
I think it's pretty hard to target the Black Lives Matter group because its not really a group as a whole, but a collective of smaller groups that have almost no connection other than they operate under the same banner. It's very similar to the group Anonymous in that there really isn't any central command and anyone at all can decide that they want to operate under the banner.
When you have a structure like that, it's really hard to treat them as a monolith. For example, one city's BLM decided to have a cookout with their local police to try to have a friendly dialog and voice their concerns. Even if you're generally against the movement as a whole, it's pretty hard to condemn trying to come together on good terms and build understanding. On the other hand it's hard to support the BLM member who has allegedly defrauded the University of Toronto for almost $300,000 dollars even if you generally support the movement as a whole.
In general, most things are a mixed bag, but typically you're dealing with an entity that is ultimately answerable to a single person or a small group of individuals so you can still form a cohesive opinion of the whole, but I don't know if that's really possible with BLM since it's completely decentralized. I suppose it's possible to argue that the "good" parts of BLM should rebrand or distance themselves from the "bad" parts, but as a brand BLM is attractive under the idea that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Even if you are one of those "good" parts of the movement, you can use the negative publicity as a foil to highlight the positive of your own particular subgroup within the movement.
I'm not sure if I like that particular line of reasoning. If it was a website solely for the purpose of organizing riots okay, but if it's mostly non-violent protest, I think it's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The government clearly needs to tread carefully here and I believe that if they want to serve a warrant, they should need to have it very narrowly defined for specific IP addresses or a very small range of them as may be necessary.
Does feeling bad about feeling worse because you're feeling bad about feeling bad also make you feel worse? This sounds like a vicious cycle in a way, so where's the bottom? Is it being goth and trying to embrace beauty in pain or something like that, and if so is the cure worse than the disease?
I'm not really sure why you're being moderated flamebait. You're the first person in any of these threads (at least that I've seen) who's provided any evidence (whether its good or not is another argument) to try to refute the memo/manifesto. Even, if like me, you agree with the science behind the manifesto, it's bad to down-mod someone just based on presenting something to the contrary. If you think its bad evidence, point out why.
If you down-mod someone just because it doesn't agree with your point of view it hardly incentivizes people to have a conversation. I've seen a lot of other people claim that they're sick of being called sexist for agreeing with science, but if you just down-mod people who try to post evidence or reasons to support their own different view, they're just going to give up and resort to name-calling, etc. that people have been claiming not to like.
I didn't save a link to it and couldn't find it with a quick Google search, but I once read an article that speculated that this was a partial reason for why Islamic terrorists commit such a disproportionate number of attacks. The argument was because Islam permits a man to have up to four wives that there will always be a shortage of access to mates for men, especially those who are less well off. Add to that research suggesting that in impoverished men that crime (or in this case terrorism) is viewed as a way to obtain status along with a religion that's going to make it illegal to have prostitution or porn or any chance of sex and it does seem plausible.
It's been a while since I read this, so I don't know how well it's backed up by evidence so it may just be an interesting hypothesis.
Black males are not oppressed. I am a black male living and working in one of those supposedly terrible conservative places, run by righties, and I have never faced meaningful discrimination. I have never been in, seen, or heard of a workplace that intentionally tried to treat black males badly. I know a lot of conservative republicans, and none of them want black males to be treated badly.
The people I see complaining about the treatment of black males are people trying to invent a villain to blame their failures on.
While I'm not going to suggest that racism doesn't exist (there are plenty of scientific studies or statistical analysis of data that have found racial bias exists or cannot explain race-based gaps for different outcomes) I would argue that the people on both sides who are creating or perpetuating a victim narrative should just fuck off because they're not doing anything to help.
You know, if you replace "white male" with "Muslim" and this recent attack with one of the ones that happened in London over the past several months, you'd sound a lot like many of the people at that rally this weekend. I kind of hope this was some attempt at satire that didn't go over well.
Jobs was absolute shit during his first tenure with Apple. It was only after he got canned and gained some perspective and spent time maturing that he became an okay CEO, and I think a lot of his success during his second tenure was realizing that while he was good (and not perfect) at product vision and marketing, there were a lot of other parts of the company that were better left to more qualified people and that he should probably leave it to them rather than always trying to do things his way.
Maybe this guy is the same and needs to get tossed out. When you're on top, its easy to get this false sense of everything being a direct result of your own actions and dismissing all of the other factors that contributed to that success. Finding out you're not as special as you think is one of those experiences that can humble you a bit and let you grow as a person.
If you're going to attempt to have more employees of category X in your company than exist naturally in the available labor pool, then you're going to have to lower hiring standards. The only ways you don't is if you assume people in category X are more skilled on average or if you pay higher wages to people in category X so you can maintain the same level of quality but draw from the best individuals among category X. I suspect that the people who disagree with what the memo/manifesto had to say are going to argue that in favor of the first being true as it directly contradicts the notion that biology doesn't play a role, and probably would reject the second as well because it's going to result in a perception of non-equal pay based on lack of merit, unless all of the category X people are more skilled than everyone else who's not in category X.
I just don't see any other way to accomplish this without lowering the bar. Say you ran a company and only wanted to hire people who are left handed (about 10% of the population, but as an interesting aside it is estimated that men are more likely to be left-handed than women for whatever reason) and that for the job you are hiring people, dominant hand plays no role in actual performance (so we're not hiring for a baseball team). How could you not reduce hiring standards if you're actively ignoring some 90% (this assumes left and right-handed people are equally likely to apply for the job) of the labor pool for artificial reasons?
I think some people just want to jump on this argument or line of thinking because it goes against their ideas of increasing diversity, but if you stop and think about it, it also supports diversity outcomes. If you were only hiring right-handed people it also means that your company is ignoring qualified individuals in the labor pool for the same reason. Sure in this particular case, it's a smaller part of the pool so you might not have to lower standards as much, but anyone who is discriminating against any minority group is actively hurting themselves by ignoring skilled workers. Interestingly, the same is true for other aspects of the memo. If women are more likely to have some attribute (whether physical or personality) than men and having a diversity across that attribute is valuable or improves outcomes in some way, then not hiring women makes it more difficult to have employees with that attribute.
But back to the central point, please let me know if there's some obvious approach by which you can discriminate in favor of some category of employees in excess of their representation in the labor pool without lowering standards or paying a higher wage, because I can't think of one. If you really want to see more people of category X in some job you'll need to address the number of people in the labor pool (which is probably a tangled mess of all manner of underlying factors both biological and social and not always easily solved) otherwise attempting to hire people disproportionately is just a bad move, much like trying to put the roof up before erecting any of the walls or laying the foundation.
I think that the free market is just as capable of handling it. If your bakery won't sell cakes to homosexual couples that's one more sale for the competition. Also you need to consider that a large number of people who aren't homosexual themselves will find it distasteful for someone to discriminate against them and will likewise take their business elsewhere.
I'm not going to advocate for a lack of all government regulation and I do believe that any entity that takes any form of government money or receives a special tax break should lose any ability to discriminate in who they do business with (for any reason at all) as their business is being funded by the public, which likely includes that very person they would wish to discriminate against. I suppose we could get into ugly edge cases involving foreign tourists, guest workers, or other non-citizen entities, but I'm not sure that changes the overall rationale by much.
If those companies really didn't want to do business with them, then I don't believe they should be forced to do so. However, you have to understand that a business taking this kind of response is going to open themselves up to similar problems in the future. At first you kick out whatever group is the most vile and that everyone else hates and no one has a problem with it, but sooner or later there's going to be another group that most (but not all) people hate and demands for the company not to do business with them either. Businesses are just as loathe to find themselves in that position as they are to be in one where they have an unpopular client.
However, those companies may not even get to make that choice. At some point there are some common carrier restrictions placed on the companies as a part of government regulations. The same ability that would allow them to discriminate against white supremacists would also allow them to decide they don't want to provide bandwidth for Netflix either. You can't build a set of rules that have an application based on good and bad. Sure you might argue that when you get to define good that it works out the way you want, but when the Nazis (or other similar groups) got to define good it really sucked for a lot of people.
Your average man or woman on the street probably wouldn't, but a Cambodian ex-pat would definitely know who Pol Pot is. Similarly there are probably a sizable percentage of Americans who don't know who Fidel Castro is either, but I wouldn't bet you'll find many of them among the Cuban American population.
Because there aren't any banners they can rally under that both have some degree of similarity to what they believe and won. Ethnic purism as a movement doesn't work because it makes some lazy generalizations that aren't true (reality doesn't care about your incorrect assumptions) and the people who tend to espouse it tend to be on the left side of the bell curve when it comes to mental faculties. It's always probably always something that will rear its ugly head, but it's just not a successful strategy so it doesn't produce winners.
Are CBS journalists fascists now too? The problem with groups that condone violence against anyone, even people limited to some smaller group or part of the population, is that eventually the definition of that group will change and the lines will blur.