6 ms·

>I don't want to see the Americanisation on our country cultures. This is something that I just cannot reconcile with the notion that all these measures are me

>I don't want to see the Americanisation on our country cultures. This is something that I just cannot reconcile with the notion that all these measures are meant to make things more inclusive. All I see are groups of rich and powerful people telling people "below them" how to behave, and makings tons of money doing it. D&I is a grift.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
uoaei 5y ago
- alexb_ 5y ago
  DEI is a great system as long as you assume that everyone participates, everyone is completely free of biases, and people actually want it to happen. So you know, it doesn't fucking work.
  - dvtrn 5y ago
    DEI is a great system as long as you assume that everyone participates, everyone is completely free of biases Having been on more than a couple DEI boards, I'm really curious where the notion that everyone must be "completely free of biases" comes from in your mind? I've never understood, and never saw any DEI effort describing bias to be something to be completely, utterly and totally eradicated, but instead something to recognize as a source of potentially--but not always--folly-filled actions ("what happens when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me", etc). Everyone has biases about something or another. Every last one of us. That's why such things as "implicit" vs "explicit" bias exists, and any DEI effort worth its salt should really be making it known that there's a difference between the two.
    - endominus 5y ago
      The argument might then be that because only a small portion of people will be part of DEI boards, and the people on those boards will tend to be biased a certain way (for the same reasons that most liberal arts professors tend not to be Republican) a certain view is consistently presented and a certain course of action is generally followed that affirms the biases of that group of people. Hence the "grift"; as DEI boards become more powerful, they inevitably force a specific culture on the rest of the group.
      - aetherane 5y ago
        The ESG rating group, for instance is a small group of opinionated people with outsized power that can make arbitrary decisions.
- tmp_anon_22 5y ago
  HR at Activision-Blizzard may have significant D&I initiatives but it categorically does not apply to their CEO Bobby Kotick.
- jollybean 5y ago
  It's a big assumption to suppose that the 'failing up' guy was only able to do so 'because he was white'. 'Buddies with the execs' - that's easy to believe. But 'because white' ... much harder to convince me there. The amount of easy and assumptive bigotry going on around these things makes me dismissive of all of it unless there's evidence otherwise. Paradoxically, you may have highlighted one of the issues with DEI policies, in that people may be encouraged to perceive their lack of progress up the ladder as somehow 'racially oriented'. This is pernicious, because it's a pyramid and it gets narrow quickly. Everyone has a beef, everyone has a 'reason' for why they aren't at some stage higher than they are, it's the perennial social issue of middle management. So that makes it hard to sort out the legitimate cases where DEI would be relevant, to just the standard 'beefs' that lie just below surface level in every office environment. At about the Director level and above, it's very political and 'talent' is not only just a small part of the equation, but it also means something else at that level. DEI is a really complicated subject, and I suggest 1990's progressives, with a focus on 'treating people equally' or 'equal opportunity' (ideals which are dismissed these days as actually being systematically racist) ... should be the rule. A dude 'failing up' if that's the case, is just unfair all around and that's it. It's 10x more complicated if you step into another cultural context i.e. outside of the US. To the point where I think Google should actively trying to avoid having too much of a posture on anything really. Aside from 'genocide' etc.
- colpabar 5y ago
  I don't really understand how your anecdote applies to what I said. What you described is nepotism, I don't really think that the guy was not promoted because he was black, and without any evidence of that being the case, I think it's kind of a stretch to assume. Can you provide any examples of why it was about his race? Otherwise, that is just nepotism, like you said.
- collegeburner 5y ago
  You raise a good point that there are still real problems that need fixing. But I don't think google docs snarking at me about capitalizing black or eschewing the gender-neutral masculine will help that.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  That sounds like bullshit corporate politics. It’s always safer for lousy management to promote idiots to top jobs. Idiots are useful in the sense that you can always get rid of then. The actual mission is secondary.
- kaczordon 5y ago
  DEI is horrible and returns us back to solely viewing people by the pigment of their skin. The pigment of your skin should be as irrelevant as your hair color, that should be the goal. Also, higher up execs at literally every top tech company(google, Fb, Apple) are aggressively pushing DEI and hiring of minorities. They literally have goals to hire x% of some minority for management positions.
- raxxorraxor 5y ago
  I prefer to call it DIE. It was always Diversity & Inclusion and now also Equity I guess. Equity is also a shareholders stake, so I am not really sure what is meant here, but it overwhelmingly seems to be this meaning as they are often those that push for such measures. The exalted lords believing to improve life for the peasants.
  - bitwize 5y ago
    Equity means special consideration for marginalized groups to compensate for past oppression. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said "A society which has for 300 years done something special against the negro must now do something special for the negro." That should give you some idea of the concept, even if nobody would say that in as many words today.
    - raxxorraxor 5y ago
      I know what it means and what is supposedly meant here, but I think it is quite funny that a very distinct homonym can very well be the same in these instances.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

uoaei 5y ago

alexb_ 5y ago
DEI is a great system as long as you assume that everyone participates, everyone is completely free of biases, and people actually want it to happen. So you know, it doesn't fucking work.
- dvtrn 5y ago
  DEI is a great system as long as you assume that everyone participates, everyone is completely free of biases Having been on more than a couple DEI boards, I'm really curious where the notion that everyone must be "completely free of biases" comes from in your mind? I've never understood, and never saw any DEI effort describing bias to be something to be completely, utterly and totally eradicated, but instead something to recognize as a source of potentially--but not always--folly-filled actions ("what happens when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me", etc). Everyone has biases about something or another. Every last one of us. That's why such things as "implicit" vs "explicit" bias exists, and any DEI effort worth its salt should really be making it known that there's a difference between the two.
  - endominus 5y ago
    The argument might then be that because only a small portion of people will be part of DEI boards, and the people on those boards will tend to be biased a certain way (for the same reasons that most liberal arts professors tend not to be Republican) a certain view is consistently presented and a certain course of action is generally followed that affirms the biases of that group of people. Hence the "grift"; as DEI boards become more powerful, they inevitably force a specific culture on the rest of the group.
    - aetherane 5y ago
      The ESG rating group, for instance is a small group of opinionated people with outsized power that can make arbitrary decisions.
tmp_anon_22 5y ago
HR at Activision-Blizzard may have significant D&I initiatives but it categorically does not apply to their CEO Bobby Kotick.
jollybean 5y ago
It's a big assumption to suppose that the 'failing up' guy was only able to do so 'because he was white'. 'Buddies with the execs' - that's easy to believe. But 'because white' ... much harder to convince me there. The amount of easy and assumptive bigotry going on around these things makes me dismissive of all of it unless there's evidence otherwise. Paradoxically, you may have highlighted one of the issues with DEI policies, in that people may be encouraged to perceive their lack of progress up the ladder as somehow 'racially oriented'. This is pernicious, because it's a pyramid and it gets narrow quickly. Everyone has a beef, everyone has a 'reason' for why they aren't at some stage higher than they are, it's the perennial social issue of middle management. So that makes it hard to sort out the legitimate cases where DEI would be relevant, to just the standard 'beefs' that lie just below surface level in every office environment. At about the Director level and above, it's very political and 'talent' is not only just a small part of the equation, but it also means something else at that level. DEI is a really complicated subject, and I suggest 1990's progressives, with a focus on 'treating people equally' or 'equal opportunity' (ideals which are dismissed these days as actually being systematically racist) ... should be the rule. A dude 'failing up' if that's the case, is just unfair all around and that's it. It's 10x more complicated if you step into another cultural context i.e. outside of the US. To the point where I think Google should actively trying to avoid having too much of a posture on anything really. Aside from 'genocide' etc.
colpabar 5y ago
I don't really understand how your anecdote applies to what I said. What you described is nepotism, I don't really think that the guy was not promoted because he was black, and without any evidence of that being the case, I think it's kind of a stretch to assume. Can you provide any examples of why it was about his race? Otherwise, that is just nepotism, like you said.
collegeburner 5y ago
You raise a good point that there are still real problems that need fixing. But I don't think google docs snarking at me about capitalizing black or eschewing the gender-neutral masculine will help that.
Spooky23 5y ago
That sounds like bullshit corporate politics. It’s always safer for lousy management to promote idiots to top jobs. Idiots are useful in the sense that you can always get rid of then. The actual mission is secondary.
kaczordon 5y ago
DEI is horrible and returns us back to solely viewing people by the pigment of their skin. The pigment of your skin should be as irrelevant as your hair color, that should be the goal. Also, higher up execs at literally every top tech company(google, Fb, Apple) are aggressively pushing DEI and hiring of minorities. They literally have goals to hire x% of some minority for management positions.
raxxorraxor 5y ago
I prefer to call it DIE. It was always Diversity & Inclusion and now also Equity I guess. Equity is also a shareholders stake, so I am not really sure what is meant here, but it overwhelmingly seems to be this meaning as they are often those that push for such measures. The exalted lords believing to improve life for the peasants.
- bitwize 5y ago
  Equity means special consideration for marginalized groups to compensate for past oppression. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said "A society which has for 300 years done something special against the negro must now do something special for the negro." That should give you some idea of the concept, even if nobody would say that in as many words today.
  - raxxorraxor 5y ago
    I know what it means and what is supposedly meant here, but I think it is quite funny that a very distinct homonym can very well be the same in these instances.