4 ms·

> may disadvantage my business by making my own products (build from their components) worse One of the biggest wins for the anti-DEI crowd was convincing peop

> may disadvantage my business by making my own products (build from their components) worse One of the biggest wins for the anti-DEI crowd was convincing people that embracing DEI implicitly meant getting something of lesser quality or value. Here, you assume that focusing on businesses owned by people of color necessitates lowering your standards of your suppliers below acceptable levels.

Nathanba 2y ago
The irony is that he didn't say that at all and it's actually you who assumed this.
- fourside 2y ago
  I’ll quote the parent comment again: > To filter things based on the owner's identity… may disadvantage my business by making my own products (build from their components) worse. Filtering based on identity can hurt his business by making his products worse. The line between cause and effect that he’s drawing seems pretty clear to me. What other interpretation would you have for that? And for the sake of completeness let’s ask a 3rd party. ChatGPT prompt: “”” Given the following sentence: To filter things based on the owner's identity… may disadvantage my business by making my own products (build from their components) worse. To what is the reader attributing a potential lower quality in his products? “”” Response: “”” The reader is attributing the potential lower quality of their products to the filtering based on the owner’s identity. This implies that restricting components based on who owns them could limit access to necessary or high-quality components, thereby negatively impacting the quality of the products they build. “””
  - Nathanba 2y ago
    Yes you need to read carefully and not let your own assumptions get in the way. He did say: Filtering based on the owner's identity is bad. He did not say: Filtering based on the owner's identity is bad while that identity matches a person of color
mike_hearn 2y ago
It does require lowering standards and quality, by definition, because in the absence of DEI pressure campaigns they'd have been selecting suppliers based on standards and quality by default. Any other criteria inherently trades off against that. And you seem to know that's true because your claim slides smoothly from "getting something of lesser quality" to "lowering standards below acceptable levels" which aren't the same thing. The latter phrasing means the products are worse but you consider the lowered quality to be an acceptable tradeoff.
- fourside 2y ago
  > It does require lowering standards and quality, by definition It does not require it. My second point refers to the fact that people often talk about evaluating candidates/choices as if there’s a single, objectively measurable metric by which we can rank them. I argue that’s not how people really make decisions, but even if they did, who’s to say that the top three choices of suppliers are not all owned by minorities or women? You can both fulfill a mission to engage with more diverse suppliers and not lower your standards. I’ve personally never been a fan of stringent DEI requirements, especially those that came from companies that were clearly in it just for the optics, and I do think it can result in lower quality. It’s the way that some people almost take lower quality as a given if diversity is involved that doesn’t sit well with me.
  - chii 2y ago
    "we have the same product/service, and charge the same price as all our competitors. But because we're owned/operated/benefits minorities, you should be choosing us as a form of guilt driven affirmative action"
    - jensensbutton 2y ago
      If all the competitors have the same quality and price then you're always going to be using some subjective criteria to decide between them. Why is choosing a minority supplier worse than any other criteria in this case?
orblivion 2y ago
The optimum outcome comes if there's zero racism, i.e. we only look at the quality of the company. Let's say there's R amount of racism, and D amount of DEI to counter it (super hand-wavy of course). The optimum outcome is if R = D. If R > D, racism skews the outcome away from the optimum. If D > R, DEI skews the outcome away from the optimum. The anti-DEI (and anti-affirmative action, etc) crowd is claiming that in 2024, D > R. They would probably also claim that in 1960, R > D, i.e. a black doctor is likely to be more qualified than his/her peers.
NotYourLawyer 2y ago
This is disingenuous.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
wtcactus 2y ago
> Here, you assume that focusing on businesses owned by people of color necessitates lowering your standards of your suppliers below acceptable levels. And it does. Otherwise, the movement would be simply named: "focus on businesses with the best product".

Nathanba 2y ago

The irony is that he didn't say that at all and it's actually you who assumed this.

fourside 2y ago
I’ll quote the parent comment again: > To filter things based on the owner's identity… may disadvantage my business by making my own products (build from their components) worse. Filtering based on identity can hurt his business by making his products worse. The line between cause and effect that he’s drawing seems pretty clear to me. What other interpretation would you have for that? And for the sake of completeness let’s ask a 3rd party. ChatGPT prompt: “”” Given the following sentence: To filter things based on the owner's identity… may disadvantage my business by making my own products (build from their components) worse. To what is the reader attributing a potential lower quality in his products? “”” Response: “”” The reader is attributing the potential lower quality of their products to the filtering based on the owner’s identity. This implies that restricting components based on who owns them could limit access to necessary or high-quality components, thereby negatively impacting the quality of the products they build. “””
- Nathanba 2y ago
  Yes you need to read carefully and not let your own assumptions get in the way. He did say: Filtering based on the owner's identity is bad. He did not say: Filtering based on the owner's identity is bad while that identity matches a person of color

mike_hearn 2y ago

It does require lowering standards and quality, by definition, because in the absence of DEI pressure campaigns they'd have been selecting suppliers based on standards and quality by default. Any other criteria inherently trades off against that. And you seem to know that's true because your claim slides smoothly from "getting something of lesser quality" to "lowering standards below acceptable levels" which aren't the same thing. The latter phrasing means the products are worse but you consider the lowered quality to be an acceptable tradeoff.

fourside 2y ago
> It does require lowering standards and quality, by definition It does not require it. My second point refers to the fact that people often talk about evaluating candidates/choices as if there’s a single, objectively measurable metric by which we can rank them. I argue that’s not how people really make decisions, but even if they did, who’s to say that the top three choices of suppliers are not all owned by minorities or women? You can both fulfill a mission to engage with more diverse suppliers and not lower your standards. I’ve personally never been a fan of stringent DEI requirements, especially those that came from companies that were clearly in it just for the optics, and I do think it can result in lower quality. It’s the way that some people almost take lower quality as a given if diversity is involved that doesn’t sit well with me.
- chii 2y ago
  "we have the same product/service, and charge the same price as all our competitors. But because we're owned/operated/benefits minorities, you should be choosing us as a form of guilt driven affirmative action"
  - jensensbutton 2y ago
    If all the competitors have the same quality and price then you're always going to be using some subjective criteria to decide between them. Why is choosing a minority supplier worse than any other criteria in this case?

orblivion 2y ago

The optimum outcome comes if there's zero racism, i.e. we only look at the quality of the company. Let's say there's R amount of racism, and D amount of DEI to counter it (super hand-wavy of course). The optimum outcome is if R = D. If R > D, racism skews the outcome away from the optimum. If D > R, DEI skews the outcome away from the optimum. The anti-DEI (and anti-affirmative action, etc) crowd is claiming that in 2024, D > R. They would probably also claim that in 1960, R > D, i.e. a black doctor is likely to be more qualified than his/her peers.

NotYourLawyer 2y ago

This is disingenuous.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

wtcactus 2y ago

> Here, you assume that focusing on businesses owned by people of color necessitates lowering your standards of your suppliers below acceptable levels. And it does. Otherwise, the movement would be simply named: "focus on businesses with the best product".