6 ms·

Glad to know my tax dollars are getting spent on the new flavor of virtue signaling. Insane this was some super high priority.

nessbot 2y ago
I never, and I mean NEVER, want to hear someone talk about "cancel culture" of the left ever again.
- briandear 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - TehCorwiz 2y ago
    The point of making these traits visible is because there's a loooooong history of white men monopolizing and PREVENTING minorities and women from participating. Or, even worse white men taking credit for the work done by women and minorities.
  - everybodyknows 2y ago
    "Accessibility" is on the list. Isn't the physical reality of needing a wheelchair ramp or scaleable web pages highly "relevant"?
- spacemadness 2y ago
  Didn’t Elon just cancel r/whitepeopletwitter?
subjectsigma 2y ago
I’m someone who was, uh, skeptical of the DEI stuff. One of my biggest complaints was that it seemed to be much ado about nothing. Re-writing laws and policies to fill them with fluff. This is EXACTLY the same thing, it is 100% virtue signaling and we are burning so much time, money, and goodwill on fucking bullshit nonsense Meanwhile the economy is in shambles, the executive branch is systematically destroying the rest of the government, and China and Russia grow ever stronger and ever more disdainful of us I would elect a black trans president in a heartbeat if I thought they could win the inevitable conflict over Taiwan. It IS an existential threat and the most immediate one meaning it is the HIGHEST PRIORITY And before anyone starts pointing fingers I did not vote for Trump in any election
- briandear 2y ago
  So if DEI language was bad, then correcting it should be a good idea.
- elsonrodriguez 2y ago
  It isn't quite the same thing. There is a difference between trying to empower historically marginalized groups, and trying to re-subjugate historically marginalized groups. Improving the opportunities available to people tends to improve economic productivity, so it's hard to argue it is a total waste of money. On the other hand, removing mentions or attempts to improve inclusion of these groups in the face of rising racism and sexism has no real upside unless you're a racist or misogynist. Purges of this sort don't have any real economic motivations, it's pure ideology. One was more of an investment, the other is more destruction. Of course while the DEI scrubbing is dangerous to just some people, the scrubbing of climate-related language is just genocidal.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > It isn't quite the same thing. There is a difference between trying to empower historically marginalized groups, and trying to re-subjugate historically marginalized groups. Not really. It's all language games. This is just the mirror image of the liberal conceit they can magically change reality by forcing people to use different words or over-elevating some story (old or new) for ideological reasons. The lesson from this is that it's all stupid, not just my-side's version, and it should stop.
  - subjectsigma 2y ago
    > trying to empower > tends to improve > hard to argue Lots of weasel words there. > On the other hand, removing mentions or attempts to improve inclusion of these groups in the face of rising racism and sexism has no real upside unless you're a racist or misogynist. Lots of absolutism there It’s easy to argue it’s a waste of money if it is not effective. That being said, not all DEI initiatives are created equal (hah) - some are fine, some are useless but harmless, and some seem harmful. That’s why the guy below me > So if DEI language was bad, then correcting it should be a good idea Is wrong just like you are, because DEI language isn’t universally bad or good. The point that I’m trying to make is we should be worrying more about things like global warming and the economy and the dictatorships coming to murder us all, which anyone with a brain knows for 100% certain that there is a problem and that we have options to fix it. Unlike DEI where everyone has their own definition of what good is. > the scrubbing of climate-related language is just genocidal. 100% agree. What Trump is doing is actively splitting the country and distracting from much more important issues
sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
This whole administration is a (very bad) joke. America was fun while it lasted. I encourage everyone to read this: https://archive.is/g6ElI https://archive.is/g6ElI The parallels are staggering.
- nh23423fefe 2y ago
  [flagged]
briandear 2y ago
Do you know how much the FAA spent renaming “cockpit” and changing Notice to Airmen to Notice to Air Missions in all FAA publications? In the midst of a profound controller shortage, the FAA spent millions on changing words. If people want to criticize the current changes as wasting money, then it’s intellectually dishonest not to call out other agencies such as the FAA for their nonsense.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  What was "cockpit" renamed to?
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    Flight deck. Also it was just a recommendation as far as my searching can find, for example https://www.nationalreview.com/news/faa-panel-recommends-changing-terms-cockpit-and-manmade-to-gender-neutral-equivalents/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/faa-panel-recommends-cha... This summary of a 2024 FAA re-authorization has the word 'cockpit' 6 times, so I'm dubious that much was done with that recommendation.
    - TehCorwiz 2y ago
      That's a highly biased source. I recommend the WaPo article it links to or even the report itself I've linked below. The relevant part is on pages 108 through 135, so ~27 pages out of 217, most of which is title cards, references, and graphs. The document itself uses "cockpit" repeatedly throughout, so these suggestions weren't proactively adopted. EDIT: Fixed link, https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/faa-s-drone-advisory-commitee-report-on-gender-neutral-language/453134fc-1e0f-4209-947b-ec84f019e086/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4 https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/faa-s-drone-advisory-...
      - verdverm 2y ago
        WaPo lost my trust when Bezos stepped in and over the editorial process. It is just another billionaire owned bully pulpit now

nessbot 2y ago

I never, and I mean NEVER, want to hear someone talk about "cancel culture" of the left ever again.

briandear 2y ago
[flagged]
- TehCorwiz 2y ago
  The point of making these traits visible is because there's a loooooong history of white men monopolizing and PREVENTING minorities and women from participating. Or, even worse white men taking credit for the work done by women and minorities.
- everybodyknows 2y ago
  "Accessibility" is on the list. Isn't the physical reality of needing a wheelchair ramp or scaleable web pages highly "relevant"?
spacemadness 2y ago
Didn’t Elon just cancel r/whitepeopletwitter?

subjectsigma 2y ago

I’m someone who was, uh, skeptical of the DEI stuff. One of my biggest complaints was that it seemed to be much ado about nothing. Re-writing laws and policies to fill them with fluff. This is EXACTLY the same thing, it is 100% virtue signaling and we are burning so much time, money, and goodwill on fucking bullshit nonsense Meanwhile the economy is in shambles, the executive branch is systematically destroying the rest of the government, and China and Russia grow ever stronger and ever more disdainful of us I would elect a black trans president in a heartbeat if I thought they could win the inevitable conflict over Taiwan. It IS an existential threat and the most immediate one meaning it is the HIGHEST PRIORITY And before anyone starts pointing fingers I did not vote for Trump in any election

briandear 2y ago
So if DEI language was bad, then correcting it should be a good idea.
elsonrodriguez 2y ago
It isn't quite the same thing. There is a difference between trying to empower historically marginalized groups, and trying to re-subjugate historically marginalized groups. Improving the opportunities available to people tends to improve economic productivity, so it's hard to argue it is a total waste of money. On the other hand, removing mentions or attempts to improve inclusion of these groups in the face of rising racism and sexism has no real upside unless you're a racist or misogynist. Purges of this sort don't have any real economic motivations, it's pure ideology. One was more of an investment, the other is more destruction. Of course while the DEI scrubbing is dangerous to just some people, the scrubbing of climate-related language is just genocidal.
- tivert 2y ago
  > It isn't quite the same thing. There is a difference between trying to empower historically marginalized groups, and trying to re-subjugate historically marginalized groups. Not really. It's all language games. This is just the mirror image of the liberal conceit they can magically change reality by forcing people to use different words or over-elevating some story (old or new) for ideological reasons. The lesson from this is that it's all stupid, not just my-side's version, and it should stop.
- subjectsigma 2y ago
  > trying to empower > tends to improve > hard to argue Lots of weasel words there. > On the other hand, removing mentions or attempts to improve inclusion of these groups in the face of rising racism and sexism has no real upside unless you're a racist or misogynist. Lots of absolutism there It’s easy to argue it’s a waste of money if it is not effective. That being said, not all DEI initiatives are created equal (hah) - some are fine, some are useless but harmless, and some seem harmful. That’s why the guy below me > So if DEI language was bad, then correcting it should be a good idea Is wrong just like you are, because DEI language isn’t universally bad or good. The point that I’m trying to make is we should be worrying more about things like global warming and the economy and the dictatorships coming to murder us all, which anyone with a brain knows for 100% certain that there is a problem and that we have options to fix it. Unlike DEI where everyone has their own definition of what good is. > the scrubbing of climate-related language is just genocidal. 100% agree. What Trump is doing is actively splitting the country and distracting from much more important issues

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago

This whole administration is a (very bad) joke. America was fun while it lasted. I encourage everyone to read this: https://archive.is/g6ElI https://archive.is/g6ElI The parallels are staggering.

nh23423fefe 2y ago
[flagged]

briandear 2y ago

Do you know how much the FAA spent renaming “cockpit” and changing Notice to Airmen to Notice to Air Missions in all FAA publications? In the midst of a profound controller shortage, the FAA spent millions on changing words. If people want to criticize the current changes as wasting money, then it’s intellectually dishonest not to call out other agencies such as the FAA for their nonsense.

rich_sasha 2y ago
What was "cockpit" renamed to?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  Flight deck. Also it was just a recommendation as far as my searching can find, for example https://www.nationalreview.com/news/faa-panel-recommends-changing-terms-cockpit-and-manmade-to-gender-neutral-equivalents/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/faa-panel-recommends-cha... This summary of a 2024 FAA re-authorization has the word 'cockpit' 6 times, so I'm dubious that much was done with that recommendation.
  - TehCorwiz 2y ago
    That's a highly biased source. I recommend the WaPo article it links to or even the report itself I've linked below. The relevant part is on pages 108 through 135, so ~27 pages out of 217, most of which is title cards, references, and graphs. The document itself uses "cockpit" repeatedly throughout, so these suggestions weren't proactively adopted. EDIT: Fixed link, https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/faa-s-drone-advisory-commitee-report-on-gender-neutral-language/453134fc-1e0f-4209-947b-ec84f019e086/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4 https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/faa-s-drone-advisory-...
    - verdverm 2y ago
      WaPo lost my trust when Bezos stepped in and over the editorial process. It is just another billionaire owned bully pulpit now