3 ms·
> you wind up with a better, more productive company when you put forth the considerable effort necessary to increase diversity Diversity, as everything else,
by hbrn 4y ago
> you wind up with a better, more productive company when you put forth the considerable effort necessary to increase diversity
Diversity, as everything else, has a sweet spot. Too little and too much are equally bad. Of course nobody knows where the sweet spot is, but merely increasing diversity is not a guarantee for improvement. I mean, you can hire someone who hates your gut and doesn't speak your language. This will definitely increase the diversity, but you probably not going to like it.
> will also explain that trying to increase diversity in the workplace is terrible. It’s almost like there’s something else going on there.
I think most of those folks just despise hypocrisy. "Being anti-racist by being racist" makes me cringe.
If you're making a diversity hire to get alternative viewpoints, you're doing it for your own benefit and being honest, I don't think anybody will have problem with that. It's the virtue signaling that makes it despicable.
There's also argument to be made that if you're allowing diversity hires, you might have to allow "cohesion" hires. Justifying one but not the other seems disingenuous.
- BryantD 4y agoSure, you could obviously have a poorly functioning diverse workplace. Likewise, you could obviously have a poorly functioning lily-white all-male workplace. The idea that diversity advocates are solely focused on diversity for its own sake is incorrect. There are two factors that typically play into it: one is practical (see my comment) and the other is moral (the belief that it’s inherently better if someone raised in a non-majority culture has an equal chance to succeed). “Virtue signaling” is a tremendously non-useful term because it is always, always applied inconsistently. The dude I’m responding to used the phrase “CRT.” That ensures that we all know that he’s virtuous and recognizes the evil of leftist thought, but you’re not calling him a virtue signaler. Don’t assume people who disagree with you are hypocrites. Maybe we’re just misinformed. “Virtue signaling” ends discussion and promotes division, and we really don’t need more of that in this world.
- hbrn 4y agoI did not imply you're a hypocrite. I only tried to explain the cancel culture / diversity paradox. Both cancel culture and DEI are incredibly hypocritical "holier than thou" contests. > belief that it’s inherently better if someone raised in a non-majority culture has an equal chance to succeed I think it's safe to say that equality of opportunity ship has long sailed. Far left is all about equality of outcome now. But let's focus on equality of opportunity. It's an incredibly complex problem to solve. Take affirmative action for example: based on dose and implementation it could either help, or it could backfire. But any criticism of it will get you labelled as bigot or racist. "We're helping disenfranchised minorities here, how dare you criticize us?" Once you believe you have the moral high ground, criticism is no longer acceptable. I'm not labelling the other guy as virtue signaler because he seems capable of self-doubt and rational thought.
- BryantD 4y agoI believe that you didn't mean to label me as a hypocrite, but if you think that my expression of virtue is designed to signal that I'm a good person rather than being a sincere expression of what I believe -- you're saying I'm a hypocrite. If you don't want to do that, don't accuse me of virtue signaling.