You must log in or register to comment.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Not VoltaireDid you know that you can give whatever name you want to something? Even a name that isn’t an accurate description of what it is? I was shocked when I found out!
Oh yeah, I’ve also heard you can make up an imaginary version of something and give it attributes you don’t like to justify your hate. Wild stuff, this.
Why, it’s almost as if people discussing politics often debate in bad faith, performing for spectators who already agree with them rather than trying to convince or even understand the person they’re debating.
Are you telling me people would lie in public for personal gain? Dear God, what an era to live in!
I oppose not hiring air traffic controllers because of their race, especially when the towers are already understaffed. But I guess a few deaths is worth it, am I right?
Your comment makes no sense, have a nice day!
I think it make sense. They’re saying its a bad idea to not hire someone who’s qualified, just because of the color of their skin.
Is that actually a thing you have confirmed happening anywhere though? I can see a qualification tie going to diversity (because diversity has been proven to spark creative solutions, etc.), but the myth that “whites” are just being passed over for anyone “non-whites” sounds like racist propaganda. And repeating it as a “question” is playing, either intentionally or not, into that propaganda.
While I’m sure it does happen …… no one is doing that to the extent they are understaffed. That’s just dumb. If they are understaffed , its almost always budget
Yes it’s a thing. They’re even facing a class action lawsuit over it. https://nypost.com/2025/01/31/us-news/faa-embroiled-in-lawsuit-alleging-it-turned-away-1000-applicants-based-on-race/?lctg=607d91df4adeb921db19b3b8 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/feb/1/editorial-faa-turned-away-qualified-air-traffic-co/
The crux of the lawsuit is that the FAA, under the Obama administration, dropped a skill-based system for hiring controllers and replaced it with a “biographical assessment” in an alleged bid to boost the number of minority job applicants.
Why didn’t Trump fix this the first time?
Too busy golfing?
After Congress forced the FAA to drop the quiz in 2018, many former applicants reapplied and have since become controllers.
Congress stopped it. Trump and crew didn’t even know the acronym DEI at this point, they were busy trying to hide his whole circles connections to Russia and UAE, defending being a “p*ssy grabber”, dunking on military vets, eating TONS of McDonald’s, and yes, constantly golfing at his resorts on the tax payer dime.
If that were to happen that would indeed be a bad idea, I agree.
Are you sure the reason they don’t hire anyone isn’t lack of budget to do so?
I’m opposed to insufficient funding for vital services but you don’t see me blaming DEI
‘Diversity hire’ is the old derogatory term that implies someone is unqualified and only hired because of their skin color or genitals, so they already openly hate diversity.
They don’t know what equity means. They probably think it means equality, and they hate that too because in their minds equality requires giving up their relative standing in society.
They hate inclusion because they hate diversity.
The meme is though provoking for someone who already understands the concepts and is useful for bringing awareness to 3rd parties who are otherwise apathetic. It won’t make the person who is put on the spot reconsider their opinion, but that’s because they are morons who fell for the anti-DEI propaganda.
“WELL I DON’T LIKE IT WHEN THEY WON’T HIRE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE QUALIFIED”
They genuinely believe that white men are at a significant disadvantage in the workforce because DEI hires. No amount of memes or conversation will convince them how ridiculous that is.
It does bother me if people are hired because of the colour of their skin or because of their gender and not because they were the best candidate. This is why “blind” hiring is a good idea in the situations where it can be implemented.
Except that’s not what’s happening. Or rather, that’s not what DEI was doing.
DEI programs are just making underrepresented people more visible. No one’s being hired because they look different.
And for centuries white men have been getting jobs that more qualified people were passed for, because they were white and male. DEI was just to level the playing field.
What does making more visible mean? I’d personally rather try to make things like race, sex and whatnot less visible so they’d have less effect on the hiring process.
Look, everyone agrees the best candidate should be the one that’s hired.
Unfortunately, there’s no objective truth in how to rank candidates - minus anything obvious. Humans make the choices and humans are prone to bias. Consciously or not, people are going to favor candidates that meet the expected stereotypes for said positions.
There are plenty of studies out there documenting it. For example, resume response rates can vary drastically based solely on the name of the applicant. (The same resume sent to various companies with changes to the applicant’s name. Masculine names, feminine names, “white” names, “black” names, etc).
It does bother me if people are hired because of the colour of their skin or because of their gender and not because they were the best candidate.
Statements like these are easy to cling onto and rally a false narrative. They’re something ““everyone”” should agree on at a first glance. They miss the underlying issues and the driving force behind various movements.
minus anything obvious
Honestly, not even that.
I’ve been on a hiring panel (for want of a better term) where we interviewed on the ground floor. We all worked up in the building. Post-interview we wouldn’t say anything, we’d just write “yes” or “no” on a piece of paper. In the elevator going back up we’d turn our cards around. It gave a simple litmus test, if we all agreed then we can go to the pub. If we disagree then we find a meeting room and discuss.
To my point. One hire, technically brilliant. They were technically, absolutely the best candidate we’d had for that role. It was clear. We got into the elevator, and all turned around “no”. The candidate was an absolute arse of a person. Clearly the best person for the job. Clearly the last person I wanted to spend 8 hours a day sitting next to. They knew they were fucking good, and they spoke like it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that person, knowing they were good, still goes home and rants about DEI hires or similar. But entirely misses the point on why they were not hired for that role.
That’s why I was suggesting blind recruitment where possible. Name, gender, all that sort of things are hidden so they won’t affect that part of the recruitment process.
Statements like these are easy to cling onto and rally a false narrative. They’re something ““everyone”” should agree on at a first glance. They miss the underlying issues and the driving force behind various movements.
Everyone should agree with them but not everyone does.
Everyone should agree with them but not everyone does.
What is it you think the “not agreeing” people want?
So funny story, my department had an employee survey and one of the questions that triggered a need for “team discussion” was:
“Do all people, regardless of race and gender, have good opportunities in our workplace?”
Evidently one person in the department said “no, they do not”. So I’m sitting there wondering “oh crap, we are a bunch of white men except one woman and one black guy, which of those two have felt screwed over due to race or gender”. But no, an older white guy proudly spoke up saying there’s no room for white men at the workplace, that white men are disadvantaged. In a place that’s like 90% white men…
It’s the worst of both. They literally enjoy privilege and advantage over others every single day, yet they also get to feel indignant and “discriminated” against.
It’s because he’s an old guy still working in that department. He doesn’t feel privileged and advantaged because he’s not retired yet.
The MAGAts felt unheard by Democrats because they saw this attack on 99%er privilege while the 1% were unaffected.
In his specific case, he was going to retire next year (at 65) and felt he was going to have a relatively comfortable retirement (he was reasonably well off).
He objected to the existence of minority themed professional development organizations at work (there was one each for women, asian, latin, and black folks). The thing was, none of these orgs actually do anything, they just have speakers come and folks can go listen. But he wanted either none to exist or to have one dedicated to white men. He was offended by their existence and was big on replacement theory, even as these minority organizations had no real power and hadn’t made a dent in the 90% white male workforce. He also would brag about how he got a wife from a country where women knew their place and would take care of the house and listen to what he said.
His younger friend was also ranting about how the South should have won the civil war, and the black guy in the department asked him to explain. His friend didn’t bat an eye to explain that the south represented the natural order of things.
There may be some disenfranchised rural poor suckered by the MAGA while neglected by the left, but these dudes were 100% not this, relatively rich, entitled and super racist and misogynist.
“Those other people are starting to get more fair consideration, so now my advantage is being threatened. No fair!”
“WELL I DON’T LIKE IT WHEN THEY WON’T HIRE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE QUALIFIED”
The whole premise of equity is that there is a desired demography of people in a given position, and that positive action should be taken to approach or maintain the desired demography and that qualification, ability and merit are secondary to that. Meaning it doesn’t matter who is better, so long as someone is good enough and the right race or sex they should have preference. Don’t hire the best person, hire the best black person or woman or whatever the desired demographic is.
Most of the people who are angry about “DEI” would be find with things like blind hiring that exclude race/sex from the process entirely but whether or not blind hiring is a valid DEI approach depends on the result - for example a public works department in Australia tried blind hiring to eliminate gender imbalance and killed that project because they found that not knowing the sex of applicants actually reduced the number of women hired which was opposed to the goal (because the goal wasn’t to remove discrimination but rather to hire more women).
They genuinely believe that white men are at a significant disadvantage in the workforce because DEI hires.
https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/38/3/337/6412759?login=false
We first note that out of 36 possible outcomes, 23 favour females, as indicated by callback gender ratios > 1. This is interesting, but due to the small sample for each occupation within each country, most of these outcomes are not significant by conventional standards (see right-hand column). In Germany, we find statistically significant hiring discrimination against male applicants for receptionist and store assistant jobs, with callback ratios of 1.4 and 1.9, respectively. In the Netherlands, we find evidence of hiring discrimination against male applicants for store assistant jobs, with a callback ratio of 2.2. In Spain, we find clear evidence of hiring discrimination of males in two occupations, with callback ratios of 1.9 (payroll clerk) and 4.5 (receptionist). In the United Kingdom, we find strong evidence of hiring discrimination against males in payroll clerk jobs (callback ratio of 4.8, the highest of all). Interestingly, in the data, we find no evidence of gender discrimination in hiring in Norway or the United States. Thus, the evidence shows hiring discrimination against male, not female, job applicants in 1–3 occupations within four of the six countries.
Based on country-specific regression models, Figure 1 (and Supplementary Table S2) shows the probability of receiving a callback separately for each country. According to these estimates, we find evidence of hiring discrimination against male applicants in United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands. The gender differences range from 0 per cent in the US to 9 percentage points in Germany. Thus, we observe gender discrimination in hiring against men in four out of six countries.
You left out the important part that actually proves my point.
“In female dominated occupations.”
They believe that they’re struggling financially, and statistically many of them are. The better argument is to show them abolishing DEI doesn’t even give them a better chance, and there are better ways to make opportunities for everyone.
They’ll say they just want the best person for the job to get it, and that DEI gives that job to a [insert minority group] instead of the most qualified person.
To be fair, they may actually believe that. A lot of these people don’t believe they’re racist, sexist, pigs. They are, but they don’t think they are. It’s not part of their calculus. They see a diversity program and feel victimized by it, they may relate troubles they had to getting a job to a diversity program instead of their own qualifications.
Because, these people are terminally self centered and the hero of their own story.
They will tell you that liberals just want a hand out, while sucking down every hand out they can get. But THEY earned it, no one else does, but they did. Regardless of their circumstances they worked hard to get what they have, and no one else is willing to.
There is no argument you can make that they do not have an answer for. They’re almost always misinformed misanthropes. You’re either in their group or you’re the bad guy. There’s no winning when you engage them.
Their monkeys throwing shit. You can throw shit back by the money will have a good time, and you’ll still be covered in shit.
Because they already believe that you are better because you are white. So two people with equal qualifications, the white is more qualified in their eyes.
They want white, cis-male to be the “default” again.
Yes - if a non-white person and/or woman has a job, it’s only because they were chosen over a more qualified white man, because obviously they’re superior in every way. But they’re not racist or sexist - they just believe in a “meritocracy!”
nevermind that under qualified candidates are chosen all the time based on a variety of factors. Like nailing an interview, having an agreeable personality, available hours, or, just, you know, having the same skin color or genitals as the hiring manager. But DEI programs are a problem. Sure.
ok but american “dei” is generally insincere, and that’s the problem
Exactly, I dislike DEI practices because they are often fake, performative and discriminatory. The intentions are good, but the execution is crap or outright malicious.
Well, if the intentions are good, but the outcomes are terribly flawed, at what point does it become necessary to re-evaluate or do away with the entire concept?
Given the current popular sentiment, now seems a good time to scrap everything, go back to the drawing board and propose constructive ideas. I don’t have particularly high expectations, though.
“We had DEI practices?”
The execution should be called out, then - the specific cases. Hating on the concept because bad actors are able to use it in their own interest is not very thought out.
If only DEI was that literal. Instead, it allowed companies to discriminate based on race, but to those with left-leaning beliefs, that’s okay as long as it only negatively affects white people, because they deserve it!
Somehow “diversity” doesn’t seem to mean diversity of thinking, but of skin color, so you have a room full of left-wing minorities that all think the same way and have the same beliefs.
It’s like when Reddit mods say that their subreddit is all about “inclusion” and “diversity”, and then right below that they say Trump supporters or voters aren’t allowed. The irony is crazy. I hope this platform is less of an echo-chamber but I expect downvotes because apparently you can’t support open source decentralized platforms without being a leftist?
that’s okay as long as it only negatively affects white people, because they deserve it!
As a white guy, I didn’t know that black people were getting the jobs that I deserved based on the color of my skin. Please do go on about how someone else who is also qualified took my potential job that was supposed to go a white guy.
misinformation
I’m just giving my opinion from my own observations. Was every place that practiced DEI doing so in bad faith? I doubt it. But many were.
[citation needed]
It’s like when Reddit mods say that their subreddit is all about “inclusion” and “diversity”, and then right below that they say Trump supporters or voters aren’t allowed.
paradox of tolerance
Right, but I would argue Trump voters by default aren’t “intolerant”. Over half the country voted for him, and I don’t think half the country is intolerant. I think there are extremes on both the left and right that are a vocal minority, and most normal people fall on either the left or right but aren’t extreme or hateful about their beliefs.
Right, but I would argue Trump voters by default aren’t “intolerant”.
I almost want to know how people supporting a someone who’s been openly demonizing minorities and immigrants and praising white supremacist groups, aren’t “intolerant by default”.
He doesn’t praise white supremacist groups… the “good people on both sides” line was taken out of context, doesn’t take much effort to see the full clip with context. The issue with a lot of the left is they view Trump and his supporters as Nazis, and cannot put themselves in the perspective of a Trump voter. Y’all lack the understanding of why he won the popular vote. Why can’t we discuss politics in good faith?
Trump, like most leaning libright, have no issue with “immigrants”. We have an issue with “illegal immigrants”. You are being intentionally obtuse and using bad faith when you phrase things this way. If you don’t enforce border laws, then there is no border. Arresting someone for breaking the law isn’t evil, nor is it intolerant. Do you have an issue with Japan’s immigration system? It’s way more strict and “intolerant” than America’s.
Trump, like most leaning libright, have no issue with “immigrants”
ah, so that’s why he throws racist insults left and right, makes sense. that changes everything.
Arresting someone for breaking the law isn’t evil, nor is it intolerant.
yes, because legality automatically implies morality, and the law is always tolerant - something that’s been true through the entirety of America’s history.
Do you have an issue with Japan’s immigration system?
yes I do, but we were talking about the USA here, so this is whataboutism in its purest form.
Why can’t we discuss politics in good faith?
https://sauropods.win/@futurebird/113950808191206382
anyway, I’m done listening to your D part, I’m not in the mood for the upcoming ARVO. good luck with your career in acrobatics.
He doesn’t praise white supremacist groups
So are you an idiot or lying on purpose?
Of the 335,893,238 current Americans 77,302,416 voted for him which is 23.01% of the country.
If I only use the voting eligible population of 244,666,890 we get 31.59% of the country who are eligible to vote so where are you getting your numbers?
If only DEI was that literal. Instead, it allowed companies to discriminate based on race, but to those with left-leaning beliefs, that’s okay as long as it only negatively affects white people, because they deserve it!
That’s a lot of talking with very little to back it up.
I’d like some actual instances of companies that have specifically not hired a qualified candidate because they were white.
And “those with left-leaning beliefs”. That’s me, hand in the air and proud of it. “as it only negatively affects white people, because they deserve it” You’re chatting shit mate. That’s not what I or any of my “left leaning” friends believe.
Sounds like you’re a normal lefty. Nice! Maybe I’m spending too much time on Reddit because the political opinions there are very extreme, it’s probably giving me a more negative view of the left
If you think Reddit is extreme, wait until you meet the people on Lemmy. There are a couple of normal rational folk around here, but they’re far outnumbered at the moment.
Seems to be the case, although at least it’s real here. Reddit is obviously astroturfed and full of bots, Lemmy is just full of legit leftists. Pick your poison I suppose.
Nah we’re astroturfed hard here too – NONSTOP anti-Harris “can’t vote for genocide” stuff here, until after Trump got elected and then hundreds and hundreds of accounts just vanished overnight. The topic isn’t even so much as discussed any more.
There’s a ton of endpoints in the fediverse, so it’s really easy to spread the account production everywhere, and automation is really easy. I’d do it myself if I were a dishonest person.
Has someone actually been on an interview panel, where you decide to hire someone because they’re black?
(I definitely haven’t.)
I have been apart of interviews (at a computer repair shop, mostly men) where my boss said we had to hire the only woman interviewee because it looked bad to not to, and we needed diversity, even though she wasn’t very qualified. So we hired her instead of the person who had excelled in the interview.
At my next job we had some diversity hires. It was pre-DEI, but we had a diversity intern program. We hired a guy because he was black, he was qualified and was amazing. Later we hired a person who was also black and wasn’t very qualified, they struggled for months and eventually quit - we had hired them based on skin color too.
Not saying I’m for or against, but I’ve seen situations where diversity became more important than qualifications. I’ve also seen where both were equally important, and that was preferred.
Tbh, being labeled as hired in a “diversity program” sounds humiliating. You’ll have to work twice as hard to prove you’re actually capable of doing the job.
Possibly. In that situation the people were grateful to be hired, and they worked hard anyway. They didn’t express any qualms about how they were hired. If they did, maybe they kept it to themselves.
apart means separated from, you mean “a part”.
No but everyone’s uncle knows a guy who was so it’s definitely real.
There are a dozen first-hand experiences in this thread, and you’re discounting them all because you lack real-life experience.
I was put in a team as a “care lead” because I was Polish and the team was Polish too. Weren’t allowed to be the actual teamleader, that was given to a dude from the US. He was absent like 99% of the time, made like two one hour meetings to “transfer knowledge” over 6 months. Then he came back, started getting pissy that people treated me as the teamlead instead of him, went to his manager and got me “transferred” out. Also, all of the scrummasters (like 8 different teams) were black, went through the company “academy” (basically a 3 month bootcamp) without any prior IT / programming experience, with completely incomprehensible accents. Some of them were later fired for security issues (one took a company laptop with medical software and client data, hardcore HIPAA shit, to Africa, without disclosing it, getting it cleared / secured), incompetence or bad fit. I think three were left after a year I was there.
Does it count if you’re saying: hire him as the best candidate but you have to make a high offer to get him because he’s black and in high demand
My field is white and Asian male dominated, so when the best candidate is an underrepresented demographic we need to jump on it
My company (major conglomerate) keeps track of demographics like this, at every level. Even as specific KPIs like “women in semior executive roles.” While ive never actually seen any written plans or anyone admitting they hired someone for a role to meet a metric, there are a handful of things that do stick out as fishy.
There have been roles that have been upgraded in title but not scope when a non white male has taken over, and there are certainly a few people who you look at and think, “how the hell did you get this job.” That said, there is one person who is in charge of almost all my questionable experiences, and hes the kind of person who would do that to meet a metric because HR told him he had to, not because he sees value in it.
Most of our other managers approach it much differently. We try to widen our recruiting pool by going different places and by consciously making sure our recruiter team is diverse
So three scenarios come up when I think of my experiences on selecting candidates.
One time, we had a woman apply. Which was almost unheard of, it was the first time I could ever remember a woman applicant. The thing was, she was also by far the best candidate. In a round of applicants that otherwise I’m sure we wouldn’t have bothered hiring, she nailed it. Retroactively, they declared the white guy that was interviewed the previous day the one to hire, who was kind of the best of the worst. Something vague about him having more years in the industry, but I overheard a concern that they didn’t trust one of our employees to behave himself in front of a very attractive hire, and that it was best for everyone to head off the sexual harassment by keeping him away from her. In which case a DEI policy would have actually been nice to counter the really bad behavior going on.
Another time, different company, we were about to do the interviews and then suddenly they were all canceled. Why? Management picked the person to fill the spot, and decided to skip all technical assessment. Because this time another woman actually applied and that was it, they needed a woman to make numbers. The person was about as well as you can expect for accepting the first person to come along. This was a position intended for an experienced industry veteran, but instead we got someone with zero experience and their education wasn’t even consistent with the work needed.
A third time, it was a hiring position where only black people were even allowed to apply. I don’t have complaints about the results here, because we got one of the best employees we’ve ever had out of it. But I can’t pretend that the specific hiring practice was fair. However the place is still, after all this, like 90% white men, so it’s not like white guys aren’t getting their chances.
I manage a team of about 50. I’ve been in management for about the past decade. Prior to that, I was a technical lead heavily involved in hiring. I’ve also run multiple intern programs that hire by the dozen each summer. I’ve hired hundreds and been in thousands of interviews.
Ive never once seen someone hired because of the color of their skin.
I do however aggressively look for people from different backgrounds to be in my candidate pools when hiring. That can really mean anything. Mono culture is a huge detriment to the org because then everyone ends up thinking the same way. I look for people willing to challenge the status quo and bring unique perspectives while still being a great teammate.
There are probably people I’ve hired who normally wouldn’t have gotten an interview based on their background but then were the best candidate. When I’ve had candidates that are equal, I’ve occasionally hired the one who is most dissimilar in skills/thought process/goals to my current team because that helps us grow. The decision was never someone’s skin color, but their background certainly could have influenced the items I chose as my hiring decisions.
DEI is not just hiring. DEI is creating a culture where people of different backgrounds can succeed. There are so many different ways to be successful at the vast majority of the roles I hire. It’s my job to make sure my org is setup so that people can be successful through as many approaches as possible. This is the part I see most often missed. If your culture only allows the loud, brash to lead, I would have missed many of my best hires over the years who led in varied ways.
Two kinds of people: the heterosexual white man and the diversity hire
Christian heterosexual white man. Can’t have any of those minority religions, or worse atheists, sneaking in.
I broke out my thesaurus, so anti diversity, equity and inclusion would be conformity, discrimination and segregation. Does that sound about right?
How about Uniformity, Segregation, and Adversity? I think we can get people on board with our new USA programs.
I like how this horrible acronym spells out U. S. A.
Conformity, Patronage and Exclusion.
I like the word conformity, because that’s really what they want. They’re afraid of anybody who acts different, or who has different viewpoints. They want a world where nobody ever makes them feel uncomfortable. If they enjoy making racist jokes, they want a world where everybody finds racist jokes funny, not one where they can be made to feel bad, or feel like their boss might get mad for telling a racist joke.
Patronage isn’t the exact opposite of equity. Equity in this context is about impartiality and fairness. But, I think Patronage fits because it describes the kind of system you get when there is no effort whatsoever to give every candidate a fair shot. Instead you get good-old-boys networks, you get nepotism, etc.
Segregation is pretty good for the last one, but I like exclusion a bit more. To me, segregation implies that there might be an alternative place for someone that’s “separate but equal”, but the reality is they don’t care if that other place exists. The key thing is to be able to exclude them from their own workplaces, sports, etc.
Just like the US PATRIOT act was definitely about being a patriot, right?
And if you don’t support it, then you’re not a patriot, right?
See how that works?
This is also why “woke” becoming a common word was bad for both sides. Not only is it nonspecific, but it starts to mean different things to different people and diverges over time. It’s easier to demonize something with a nonspecific meaning for exactly that reason.
There’s a meme that says “everything I don’t like is woke”, and while it’s funny, that’s literally the process that happens when such terms become catchalls – what they catch depends on what any individual speaker wants out of using it.
With DEI, the process has been the same. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are many people who believe it’s bad (because they were told that and lack critical thinking skills) and may not even know what the acronym stands for.
Reminds me of that time (as if it was only once) a depressing amount of people, mostly conservatives, didn’t know that the ACA and “Obamacare” mean the same thing.
Conservative politics depend heavily on placing labels on everything because it’s a built-in way of telling the rubes what they should think and feel.
They don’t like any of them, because those are the concepts that defeated the Nazis.
They were defeated by a group of countries (diversity), which allowed anyone to join (inclusivity) and didn’t think they were better than others (equity).
Equality != Equity. Equity is equal outcome regardless of capability. Equality is equal opportunity, and merit-based.
Equity is the wrong thing to strive for when we don’t even have equality yet.
Haha, nice one.
I hate inclusive.
I’ll never be in the MAGA(neo-Nazis) group.
I would argue DEI nolonger means diversity equity and inclusion.
I think for the"normal" people who aren’t frothing at the mouth racists, it’s specifically about the HR enforced corporate perversion of diversity, equity and inclusion that they hate. Patronising lecturers and dehumanising metrics often leave a sour taste in peoples mouths, even if the cause is a good one
When a metric becomes a target it ceases to be a good metric.
I don’t believe in “Equity”, I believe in “Equality”. The difference is that with Equality, everyone gets the same opportunities. They don’t just get opportunities because of their skin color, despite lack of qualifications.
I oppose the existing “DEI” as it exists today because it’s openly racist. It’s openly racist to the people it basically purports to help.
I oppose the existing “DEI” as it exists today because it’s openly racist. It’s openly racist to the people it basically purports to help
I can make that shorter for you for next time:
I don’t understand DEI at all
The real world is calling, wants you to come back to it some time. Plenty of examples in this EXACT thread where people detail DEI hiring someone because of their skin color.
That’s racism.
I’d rather just imagine I know what DEI is than learn
FTFY
Grow up. Putting words in my mouth isn’t a discussion, it’s childishness.
I’m just paraphrasing what you said, simple as
You straight up lied in your comment, it’s very clear you have no idea what DEI is nor do you care, you just want to whine like a typical cuckservative
Politics is a spectrum you bigot.
He’s not being very inclusive 😏
Here you go bud, hope it helps.
How about they just pay for seats? The stands clearly are accommodating for everyone. And it isn’t ‘equity’ either.
This graphic has been used for too long because of its emotional aspect. Equality is them buying seats and watching the game without boxes at all. In itself, it’s a fallacy because they clearly have accommodations for all of them, and they’ve decided to stand behind a fence.
And, since WHEN do skin colors need special accommodations ANYWAYS?
Dividing people by skin color is the first way the corporate elite divide our nation - so that we fight amongst ourselves against the real discrimination, class-based discrimination.
How about they just pay for seats?
This misses the point. It could be a baseball stadium, a tree with apples, etc. It doesn’t fucking matter what the goal is or how accommodating the stadium is due to the whim of artist filling the seats with blotches of color. None of that is the point.
This graphic has been used for too long
And despite that it’s meaning is still lost on you.
because of its emotional aspect.
What emotional aspect?
Equality is them buying seats and watching the game without boxes at all.
No, equality is giving everyone equal resources and pretending that there aren’t earlier prerequisites that aren’t equal, with an end result of not everyone getting an equal end result. Equality is materially worse than equity, and leaves society worse off. You’ve fundamentally missed the point.
they clearly have accommodations for all of them, and they’ve decided to stand behind a fence.
Now you’re just making shit up. There is no story telling you that. It’s a cartoon depicting the allocation of resources and its effects.
And, since WHEN do skin colors need special accommodations ANYWAYS?
This is a strawman.
This 1000%. Stop separating your words from their meanings.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
