3 ms·
Even quoting the NIH/NSF budgets (or their line items) misses the point of the current actions. Yes, they're smaller fractions of the USG budget, but they not i
by kristjansson 2y ago
Even quoting the NIH/NSF budgets (or their line items) misses the point of the current actions. Yes, they're smaller fractions of the USG budget, but they not immaterial.
This is not an attempt to 'save money' at the NSF and NIH (and USAID). A serious, rational effort to reduce their costs / increase their efficiency does not start with grep-ing manuscripts for 'underrepresented'. Part Five of TFA is on the money. This is an ideological attack on acronyms, and what they symbolize to the attackers. The actual agencies, their relative importance to the budget, etc. do not matter. The iconoclasts are here to smash the icons.
- khazhoux 2y ago[flagged]
- alienthrowaway 2y agoKilling mawmaw to own the libs.
- philosopher1234 2y ago*meemaw
- cubefox 2y ago[flagged]
- squigz 2y agoWith the previous system being famously meritocratic...
- cubefox 2y agoWhat's your argument?
- atrus 2y agoThe argument is that the previous system wasn't a meritocracy either, and by accounting for the existing biases we gather up the talent that was previously ignored. You don't stop reading the resume upon hitting <minority group> and hit the hire button. They still need the other required skills too.
- squigz 2y agoThe previous system wasn't just not a meritocracy, it was famously discriminatory. And not just against gay or black people - poor and disabled white people were discriminated against too. Not to mention rampant nepotism and favouritism, which the anti-DEI crowd don't seem to care as much about.
- cubefox 2y ago> The argument is that the previous system wasn't a meritocracy either, and by accounting for the existing biases we gather up the talent that was previously ignored. Whether or not that is true (you haven't given evidence for it), this doesn't justify additional anti-meritocratic practices like diversity hiring. Two wrongs don't make a right. > You don't stop reading the resume upon hitting <minority group> and hit the hire button. They still need the other required skills too. An analogous argument wouldn't justify e.g. nepotism ("we don't care only about nepotism, we also care partly about merit!") and it doesn't justify diversity hiring either. The argument is that, when deciding who should be hired for doing difficult cancer surgeries, only merit should be considered, and diversity (or nepotism etc) shouldn't play any role at all.
- khazhoux 2y agoSure. But today's right-wing assumes, a priori, that any minority or female professional must have been a product of "representation" and not actually qualified.
- leereeves 2y agoOnly in your head. Nearly half of Trump's leadership picks are women, including his chief of staff, and many are minorities, including the Secretary of State.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nonethewiser 2y agoIs that what they are saying?
- meijer 2y agoNote: pg appears to be "generally sympathetic" to what Musk is doing here. https://xcancel.com/paulg/status/1886741943050211408 https://xcancel.com/paulg/status/1886741943050211408
- causal 2y agoThanks for sharing, worth having the full quote I think: > I'm generally sympathetic to what you're doing. But I hope you will take your time and do it carefully. This isn't just a company. Companies are born and die within the system, and it's ok. But this is the system itself we're talking about here. PG sounds nervous. I have to imagine there are a lot of nervous conservatives who didn't think it would go this far and are now too scared to stand in the way.
- lightbendover 2y ago[dead]