4 ms·

I'd like to counter this, but yeah... lots of people just throw "woke" and "DEI" around for everything not good, it's extremely painful to see. - Boeing sucks

I'd like to counter this, but yeah... lots of people just throw "woke" and "DEI" around for everything not good, it's extremely painful to see. - Boeing sucks at building stuff: blame woke hiring - SpaceX has a landing failure: blame DEI hires at suppliers I wouldn't be surprised if they shout at the sky screaming about woke clouds when they get caught in rain without an umbrella

falcolas 2y ago
DEI is a replacement word, especially when used in the phrase "DEI hire". It's a replacement for Black, more specifically "N**r". It's been really weird to see "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" become a hate word.
Izkata 2y ago
Both of those mean "hiring based on identity politics instead of ability to do the job" (though different sub-groups, the first being activists and the second being the groups the activists focus on). It's not a simplistic "not good".
- dotnet00 2y ago
  I know that's what those are supposed to mean, but that's not how the average poster on social media seems to use it. Like with my example of the SpaceX landing failure, it was a booster that had flown over 20 times, had flown a trajectory at the edge of its performance, the leading theory (IIRC) was/is that some components on the legs finally wore out too much. Testing these limits has been one of the side-benefits of Starlink launches on used boosters. So, seeing a bunch of people stupidly freaking out about this being due to DEI just shows that they don't actually know what "DEI hiring" is as a complaint.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > I know that's what those are supposed to mean, but that's not how the average poster on social media seems to use it. This applies for every single word, average poster on social media are dumb. Toxic masculinity is similarly misused etc.
  - lazyeye 2y ago
    But this in no way negates the thesis that a hiring policy based on membership of groups rather than merit alone, might mean that people are less competent and more mistakes happen.
    - superb_dev 2y ago
      Thankfully that “thesis” doesn’t need negating, because so far it’s been completely unsupported.
      - zer8k 2y ago
        [CITATION NEEDED]
        superb_dev 2y ago
        I haven't seen a single citation in this thread to support it, you're welcome to provide some here
        lazyeye 2y ago
        Lol
        collingreen 2y ago
        I don't know if you're for or against the comment you're replying to with the same message and I find that delightful.
      - allarm 2y ago
        It’s a simple logic though, let me help you: if you hire someone based on attribute A, you can't know with certainty that their attribute B is sufficiently developed. You’re welcome.
        superb_dev 2y ago
        That’s just clearly not true! Nobody hires on a single criteria, and evaluating one criteria does not prevent you from evaluating another. The only way your argument holds water is if you think minorities are just not up to the job.
- superb_dev 2y ago
  Neither of those things mean hiring someone who doesn’t have the ability to do the job. Which is clearly wrong because of course minorities are able to do these jobs
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    No it is not true that "of course minorities are able to do the job". Just as it is not true that "of course majorities are able to do the job". Just as it is not true that "of course minorities are not able to do the job". Just as it is not true that "of course majorities are not able to do the job". What minority/majority/gender or other group you belong to simply is not relevant. For most highly skilled jobs, most people are not able to do the job, completely irrespective of which group they belong to otherwise ("otherwise" meaning: unless your grouping is "people who can do the job" and "people who can't do the job"). So the only or at least overriding criterion in hiring should (must?) be: can they do the job? (Do they have the skills, training, temperament, work ethic, etc.) When reasonable people complain about DEI hires, what they are complaining about is "ability to do the job" not being the first, foremost and preferably only criterion used to select the hire. This is a reasonable complaint. Of course there are also racist assholes, who complain about DEI hires because they believe a-priori that someone with a minority background can't do the job. That is to be condemned, obviously.
    - jazzypants 2y ago
      It's just not a real thing. People don't get hired for their race in highly specialized jobs. It's just racist nonsense.
      - zer8k 2y ago
        Actually, they do, regularly. But you've used the term "highly specialized jobs" which is unassailable. No matter which example I provide you can provide an even more specialized job that hires less people over a longer timeframe due to the skill gap. I can tell you with certainty it happens in tech. This is probably not "highly specialized" but unless I am to ignore the very obvious anti-white anti-male undertones of the monthly all-hands HR segments the sorting algorithm based on victim hierarchy is well and truly alive. I work for a coastal company though so perhaps this effective is magnified significantly.

falcolas 2y ago

DEI is a replacement word, especially when used in the phrase "DEI hire". It's a replacement for Black, more specifically "N**r". It's been really weird to see "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" become a hate word.

Izkata 2y ago

Both of those mean "hiring based on identity politics instead of ability to do the job" (though different sub-groups, the first being activists and the second being the groups the activists focus on). It's not a simplistic "not good".

dotnet00 2y ago
I know that's what those are supposed to mean, but that's not how the average poster on social media seems to use it. Like with my example of the SpaceX landing failure, it was a booster that had flown over 20 times, had flown a trajectory at the edge of its performance, the leading theory (IIRC) was/is that some components on the legs finally wore out too much. Testing these limits has been one of the side-benefits of Starlink launches on used boosters. So, seeing a bunch of people stupidly freaking out about this being due to DEI just shows that they don't actually know what "DEI hiring" is as a complaint.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > I know that's what those are supposed to mean, but that's not how the average poster on social media seems to use it. This applies for every single word, average poster on social media are dumb. Toxic masculinity is similarly misused etc.
- lazyeye 2y ago
  But this in no way negates the thesis that a hiring policy based on membership of groups rather than merit alone, might mean that people are less competent and more mistakes happen.
  - superb_dev 2y ago
    Thankfully that “thesis” doesn’t need negating, because so far it’s been completely unsupported.
    - zer8k 2y ago
      [CITATION NEEDED]
      - superb_dev 2y ago
        I haven't seen a single citation in this thread to support it, you're welcome to provide some here
        lazyeye 2y ago
        Lol
      - collingreen 2y ago
        I don't know if you're for or against the comment you're replying to with the same message and I find that delightful.
    - allarm 2y ago
      It’s a simple logic though, let me help you: if you hire someone based on attribute A, you can't know with certainty that their attribute B is sufficiently developed. You’re welcome.
      - superb_dev 2y ago
        That’s just clearly not true! Nobody hires on a single criteria, and evaluating one criteria does not prevent you from evaluating another. The only way your argument holds water is if you think minorities are just not up to the job.
superb_dev 2y ago
Neither of those things mean hiring someone who doesn’t have the ability to do the job. Which is clearly wrong because of course minorities are able to do these jobs
- mpweiher 2y ago
  No it is not true that "of course minorities are able to do the job". Just as it is not true that "of course majorities are able to do the job". Just as it is not true that "of course minorities are not able to do the job". Just as it is not true that "of course majorities are not able to do the job". What minority/majority/gender or other group you belong to simply is not relevant. For most highly skilled jobs, most people are not able to do the job, completely irrespective of which group they belong to otherwise ("otherwise" meaning: unless your grouping is "people who can do the job" and "people who can't do the job"). So the only or at least overriding criterion in hiring should (must?) be: can they do the job? (Do they have the skills, training, temperament, work ethic, etc.) When reasonable people complain about DEI hires, what they are complaining about is "ability to do the job" not being the first, foremost and preferably only criterion used to select the hire. This is a reasonable complaint. Of course there are also racist assholes, who complain about DEI hires because they believe a-priori that someone with a minority background can't do the job. That is to be condemned, obviously.
  - jazzypants 2y ago
    It's just not a real thing. People don't get hired for their race in highly specialized jobs. It's just racist nonsense.
    - zer8k 2y ago
      Actually, they do, regularly. But you've used the term "highly specialized jobs" which is unassailable. No matter which example I provide you can provide an even more specialized job that hires less people over a longer timeframe due to the skill gap. I can tell you with certainty it happens in tech. This is probably not "highly specialized" but unless I am to ignore the very obvious anti-white anti-male undertones of the monthly all-hands HR segments the sorting algorithm based on victim hierarchy is well and truly alive. I work for a coastal company though so perhaps this effective is magnified significantly.