5 ms·

I don't understand. What specifically is "the existence of those DEI programs" preventing you from saying or doing at work?

fullshark 4y ago
Fear of open communication because not using the exact DEI approved phrasing means HR retribution or even firing.
dudul 4y ago
A few jobs ago, as a hiring manager I was "invited" to always move female applicants to the phone screen stage. Regardless of the content of the resume. I would have liked to be brave enough to refuse and say that it was stupid. Instead I just wasted 30minutes of my time once in a while.
crackercrews 4y ago
> What specifically is "the existence of those DEI programs" preventing you from saying or doing at work? If the program merely existed, that would be one thing. But if the company is spending millions and talking about their dedication to increasing URM representation, that makes it clear that dissent is not welcome.
midoridensha 4y ago
This is kinda silly and should be obvious: I don't believe this myself as I'm not religious, but if someone is a conservative religious person and believes that homosexuality is "evil" and such people should be forcibly "converted" or whatever, voicing that opinion at work to actual LGBT people is not going to go over well. Of course, that opinion is anti-diversity and anti-inclusion, but threatening to fire people with these opinions is itself anti-diversity and anti-inclusion, because it's excluding conservative religious people. To go full Godwin, firing people for expressing outright fascist viewpoints is also anti-diversity: it's excluding fascists. Basically, there's no way to have true diversity and inclusion for all viewpoints, because so many viewpoints are mutually incompatible. There's simply no way to reconcile the viewpoints of two people, one of whom is LGBT (or at least pro-LGBT rights) and one of whom thinks such people should be marched into death camps. This really goes for any kind of viewpoints; you can only accept so much diversity of opinion before you get into an irreconcilable conflict. In normal polite society, we avoid this problem by simply forbidding discussion of certain topics in certain places. But that means people cannot feel safe expressing themselves fully in those places; there's simply no way to allow that as long as diversity is allowed.
- kanbara 4y ago
  there's no rule saying that anyone needs to cater to fascists. in fact, they should not be allowed in civil society and should be ostracised, for their views are against human rights. who cares about their viewpoints? it's not even a slippery slope because it's just so absurd that people should be polite and respectful of genocidal ethno-nationalists. /shrug
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Several billion people on the planet believe in religions that promote anti-human-rights viewpoints. Should all of them be thrown out of civil society then? That means that a large majority of Americans, for instance, should be rounded up and put into death camps, right? (Because how else are you going to exclude them from civil society? Move them to northern Alaska or Antarctica?) And how exactly do we exclude entire nations from "civil society" anyway?
- sandkoan 4y ago
  See also Popper's paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - everdrive 4y ago
    I had never heard of this before. Thank you so much for sharing.
zo1 4y ago
Openly telling or discussing-with a black person that they probably got hired because of their skin color instead of their value as a human with knowledge and capability that is valuable to the company. You'll very quickly be sent for "re-education" if not downright fired.
- gsinclair 4y ago
  That would just be rude regardless of the existence or otherwise of any initiatives. I mean, you wouldn’t actually want to act like that, would you?
  - zo1 4y ago
    It's an example, but the general gist of that sentence could definitely come up in conversation.

fullshark 4y ago

Fear of open communication because not using the exact DEI approved phrasing means HR retribution or even firing.

dudul 4y ago

A few jobs ago, as a hiring manager I was "invited" to always move female applicants to the phone screen stage. Regardless of the content of the resume. I would have liked to be brave enough to refuse and say that it was stupid. Instead I just wasted 30minutes of my time once in a while.

crackercrews 4y ago

> What specifically is "the existence of those DEI programs" preventing you from saying or doing at work? If the program merely existed, that would be one thing. But if the company is spending millions and talking about their dedication to increasing URM representation, that makes it clear that dissent is not welcome.

midoridensha 4y ago

This is kinda silly and should be obvious: I don't believe this myself as I'm not religious, but if someone is a conservative religious person and believes that homosexuality is "evil" and such people should be forcibly "converted" or whatever, voicing that opinion at work to actual LGBT people is not going to go over well. Of course, that opinion is anti-diversity and anti-inclusion, but threatening to fire people with these opinions is itself anti-diversity and anti-inclusion, because it's excluding conservative religious people. To go full Godwin, firing people for expressing outright fascist viewpoints is also anti-diversity: it's excluding fascists. Basically, there's no way to have true diversity and inclusion for all viewpoints, because so many viewpoints are mutually incompatible. There's simply no way to reconcile the viewpoints of two people, one of whom is LGBT (or at least pro-LGBT rights) and one of whom thinks such people should be marched into death camps. This really goes for any kind of viewpoints; you can only accept so much diversity of opinion before you get into an irreconcilable conflict. In normal polite society, we avoid this problem by simply forbidding discussion of certain topics in certain places. But that means people cannot feel safe expressing themselves fully in those places; there's simply no way to allow that as long as diversity is allowed.

kanbara 4y ago
there's no rule saying that anyone needs to cater to fascists. in fact, they should not be allowed in civil society and should be ostracised, for their views are against human rights. who cares about their viewpoints? it's not even a slippery slope because it's just so absurd that people should be polite and respectful of genocidal ethno-nationalists. /shrug
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Several billion people on the planet believe in religions that promote anti-human-rights viewpoints. Should all of them be thrown out of civil society then? That means that a large majority of Americans, for instance, should be rounded up and put into death camps, right? (Because how else are you going to exclude them from civil society? Move them to northern Alaska or Antarctica?) And how exactly do we exclude entire nations from "civil society" anyway?
sandkoan 4y ago
See also Popper's paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- everdrive 4y ago
  I had never heard of this before. Thank you so much for sharing.

zo1 4y ago

Openly telling or discussing-with a black person that they probably got hired because of their skin color instead of their value as a human with knowledge and capability that is valuable to the company. You'll very quickly be sent for "re-education" if not downright fired.

gsinclair 4y ago
That would just be rude regardless of the existence or otherwise of any initiatives. I mean, you wouldn’t actually want to act like that, would you?
- zo1 4y ago
  It's an example, but the general gist of that sentence could definitely come up in conversation.