4 ms·

Best course of action is symmetrical response.

bbor 2y ago
I’m gonna dip into politics a bit for my assertion that “fight racism with racism” isn’t a great move, either for the societal long term or the personal/legal short term.
- zo1 2y ago
  That is the entire premise of DEI initiatives. It's yet another "an eye for an eye".
  - skywhopper 2y ago
    This is a delusional and hateful lie.
    - zo1 2y ago
      Have you been on the receiving end of DEI? The same way a minority has been on the receiving end of racism? We can all wax lyrical and paint pretty pictures about the noble goals of DEI. But till we get an equal and fair world, the ugly picture is that DEI starts by dividing the pie into smaller parts, and taking from one to give to another, instead of making the pie bigger for everyone. And if history is anything to go by, most "DEI"-like efforts never ever reach that end-goal. They perpetuate indefinitely until they create yet another oppressed or previously-disadvantaged class, and the cycle will just repeat.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        The biggest problem with DEI policies in practice was that companies entrusted HR to implement them. HR at most companies doesn't do nuance or complexity.
    - kshGa 2y ago
      You could perhaps assume idealism in 2020. Four years later it is clear that DEI is used as a wedge to displace those you do not like and replace them with unskilled believers.
      - j45 2y ago
        DEI is hardly about unskilled alternatives. It’s only about getting people to the table who are equally qualified and capable and overlooked and under represented. Often to the chagrin of most people who are lamenting on it changing.
        zo1 2y ago
        Please don't take this personally, or as an attack on you. But having seen DEI first-hand, and the "equally qualified" people it has actively displaced and disenfranchised, I'd have to say that this view avoids the ugly reality on the ground wrt DEI. There is an entire country currently affected by it's poor implementation, and it's failure is just seen as more reason for efforts to be doubled and for more-extreme quotas to be put in place.
        j45 2y ago
        There's nothing personal to take. So you shouldn't take it personally. Perhaps, instead we can think about how could it be taken it professionally.. There's equal or better qualified candidates for every position that don't make it to the table because of existing gatekeeping. That would likely have the effect of helping borderline candidates who can fail upwards, maybe do that a little less... or level up. What's curious is the presumption that one persons experience or interpretation (yours) doesn't mean a better perspective, experience can't exist. Is it possible you might not be the only one experiencing DEI? Gatekeeping has been a thing that's existed for a very, very, very long time. Often to the benefit of many of the people complaining about new kinds of space-making that affect gatekeeping that they didn't realize benefitted them. This current wave of DEI is definitely early. It's not perfect. Neither was the gatekeeping that preceded it. Other things that were early got a lot more leeway and understanding. But it can shows what some folks want to see happen (or not happen) one way or the other.
    - gruez 2y ago
      Are you claiming positive discrimination has not been advanced under the banner of DEI, or that it has but wasn't true DEI?
  - j45 2y ago
    DEI is more about getting equally qualified candidates to the table that are ignored or missed. Yes that makes it more competitive. Or less-competitive at an advantage to some and both others if it stayed the same way.
    - zo1 2y ago
      Oh that may be the "on-paper" goal of DEI, and I'd be all for it if it stayed that way; it sounds very very fair. But it never stays that way, and quotas enter the picture before long.
      - j45 2y ago
        Tricky and slippery rationalizations are something I try to be mindful of. I put forward a single simple point. Since it's resonating in a response, it might be worth considering why, and see how our viewpoints form and how much of it might be rooted in isolating emotions like fear. In discussing, an open mind to me is one that can openly entertain a viewpoint that isn't their own, and seeing if they're open to growing or changing their viewpoint. Maybe.. the way your country does DEI is trying to do the opposite of the race based separation it did prior and doesn't know if any other levers exist? One nice thing is you're inheriting the world and can help make it the way you think it should be instead of wanting to be a passive beneficiary of past gatekeeping baselines. Hypothetically speaking... could openly entertain a viewpoint that isn't our own.. be similar to believing software could be better, if it was only improved, by trying to improve ourselves and building software better?
    - gruez 2y ago
      That's the motte of the DEI motte-and-bailey. The bailey contains policies like race based quotas or preferential treatment.
      - j45 2y ago
        Race based quotas seem like very US things. Theres lots of ways to improve hiring. If holding space for equally qualified candidates is preferential treatment, is it having to exist because of the gatekeeping that existed before it? Still, it remains important for any practice to do a good job of helping everyone understand how it's working better. Too often companies jump to signal trends and keep doing whatever they were all along. Like organizations who's leadership looks nothing like the pool of qualified candidates in the respective country.
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    It is if you look at it in a divisive, "us" vs "them" fashion. However, it's to try and make up for hundreds or more years of active suppression and exclusion from society and opportunities. Ask yourselves, who paid for your education? Was it pulled up by the bootstraps rags-to-riches, or did you get help from e.g. family? Where did you grow up, and how did that contribute to your current career / life? Now imagine you didn't have those opportunities, because your family (going back generations) never was able to build up generational wealth and comfort. DEI is an attempt to make up for that. Is it ideal? No. Does it come across as discrimination to the priviledged people / classes? Sure. Does it personally affect you? Probably not, but I don't know you (generalised you, the reader). That said, if you don't like DEI, vote and act accordingly. Work to make sure everyone earns a liveable wage, owns a house, gets a good education and consequent steady job opportunities regardless of familial wealth. Be and act anti-racist and anti-classist, because it's not enough to simply "not be racist".
ErigmolCt 2y ago
It may feel satisfying, but it risks escalating tensions and fostering more division rather than solving the core issue.
eru 2y ago
What makes you think so? Usually, the sanest recourse in these kinds of situations is to cut your losses and vote with your feet.

bbor 2y ago

I’m gonna dip into politics a bit for my assertion that “fight racism with racism” isn’t a great move, either for the societal long term or the personal/legal short term.

zo1 2y ago
That is the entire premise of DEI initiatives. It's yet another "an eye for an eye".
- skywhopper 2y ago
  This is a delusional and hateful lie.
  - zo1 2y ago
    Have you been on the receiving end of DEI? The same way a minority has been on the receiving end of racism? We can all wax lyrical and paint pretty pictures about the noble goals of DEI. But till we get an equal and fair world, the ugly picture is that DEI starts by dividing the pie into smaller parts, and taking from one to give to another, instead of making the pie bigger for everyone. And if history is anything to go by, most "DEI"-like efforts never ever reach that end-goal. They perpetuate indefinitely until they create yet another oppressed or previously-disadvantaged class, and the cycle will just repeat.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      The biggest problem with DEI policies in practice was that companies entrusted HR to implement them. HR at most companies doesn't do nuance or complexity.
  - kshGa 2y ago
    You could perhaps assume idealism in 2020. Four years later it is clear that DEI is used as a wedge to displace those you do not like and replace them with unskilled believers.
    - j45 2y ago
      DEI is hardly about unskilled alternatives. It’s only about getting people to the table who are equally qualified and capable and overlooked and under represented. Often to the chagrin of most people who are lamenting on it changing.
      - zo1 2y ago
        Please don't take this personally, or as an attack on you. But having seen DEI first-hand, and the "equally qualified" people it has actively displaced and disenfranchised, I'd have to say that this view avoids the ugly reality on the ground wrt DEI. There is an entire country currently affected by it's poor implementation, and it's failure is just seen as more reason for efforts to be doubled and for more-extreme quotas to be put in place.
        j45 2y ago
        There's nothing personal to take. So you shouldn't take it personally. Perhaps, instead we can think about how could it be taken it professionally.. There's equal or better qualified candidates for every position that don't make it to the table because of existing gatekeeping. That would likely have the effect of helping borderline candidates who can fail upwards, maybe do that a little less... or level up. What's curious is the presumption that one persons experience or interpretation (yours) doesn't mean a better perspective, experience can't exist. Is it possible you might not be the only one experiencing DEI? Gatekeeping has been a thing that's existed for a very, very, very long time. Often to the benefit of many of the people complaining about new kinds of space-making that affect gatekeeping that they didn't realize benefitted them. This current wave of DEI is definitely early. It's not perfect. Neither was the gatekeeping that preceded it. Other things that were early got a lot more leeway and understanding. But it can shows what some folks want to see happen (or not happen) one way or the other.
  - gruez 2y ago
    Are you claiming positive discrimination has not been advanced under the banner of DEI, or that it has but wasn't true DEI?
- j45 2y ago
  DEI is more about getting equally qualified candidates to the table that are ignored or missed. Yes that makes it more competitive. Or less-competitive at an advantage to some and both others if it stayed the same way.
  - zo1 2y ago
    Oh that may be the "on-paper" goal of DEI, and I'd be all for it if it stayed that way; it sounds very very fair. But it never stays that way, and quotas enter the picture before long.
    - j45 2y ago
      Tricky and slippery rationalizations are something I try to be mindful of. I put forward a single simple point. Since it's resonating in a response, it might be worth considering why, and see how our viewpoints form and how much of it might be rooted in isolating emotions like fear. In discussing, an open mind to me is one that can openly entertain a viewpoint that isn't their own, and seeing if they're open to growing or changing their viewpoint. Maybe.. the way your country does DEI is trying to do the opposite of the race based separation it did prior and doesn't know if any other levers exist? One nice thing is you're inheriting the world and can help make it the way you think it should be instead of wanting to be a passive beneficiary of past gatekeeping baselines. Hypothetically speaking... could openly entertain a viewpoint that isn't our own.. be similar to believing software could be better, if it was only improved, by trying to improve ourselves and building software better?
  - gruez 2y ago
    That's the motte of the DEI motte-and-bailey. The bailey contains policies like race based quotas or preferential treatment.
    - j45 2y ago
      Race based quotas seem like very US things. Theres lots of ways to improve hiring. If holding space for equally qualified candidates is preferential treatment, is it having to exist because of the gatekeeping that existed before it? Still, it remains important for any practice to do a good job of helping everyone understand how it's working better. Too often companies jump to signal trends and keep doing whatever they were all along. Like organizations who's leadership looks nothing like the pool of qualified candidates in the respective country.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  It is if you look at it in a divisive, "us" vs "them" fashion. However, it's to try and make up for hundreds or more years of active suppression and exclusion from society and opportunities. Ask yourselves, who paid for your education? Was it pulled up by the bootstraps rags-to-riches, or did you get help from e.g. family? Where did you grow up, and how did that contribute to your current career / life? Now imagine you didn't have those opportunities, because your family (going back generations) never was able to build up generational wealth and comfort. DEI is an attempt to make up for that. Is it ideal? No. Does it come across as discrimination to the priviledged people / classes? Sure. Does it personally affect you? Probably not, but I don't know you (generalised you, the reader). That said, if you don't like DEI, vote and act accordingly. Work to make sure everyone earns a liveable wage, owns a house, gets a good education and consequent steady job opportunities regardless of familial wealth. Be and act anti-racist and anti-classist, because it's not enough to simply "not be racist".

ErigmolCt 2y ago

It may feel satisfying, but it risks escalating tensions and fostering more division rather than solving the core issue.

eru 2y ago

What makes you think so? Usually, the sanest recourse in these kinds of situations is to cut your losses and vote with your feet.