5 ms·

[flagged]

by khazhoux 2y ago

[flagged]

alienthrowaway 2y ago
Killing mawmaw to own the libs.
- philosopher1234 2y ago
  *meemaw
cubefox 2y ago
[flagged]
- squigz 2y ago
  With the previous system being famously meritocratic...
  - cubefox 2y ago
    What's your argument?
    - atrus 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. 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 ago
        The 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 ago
  Sure. 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 ago
    Only 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 ago
Is that what they are saying?

[flagged]

alienthrowaway 2y ago

Killing mawmaw to own the libs.

philosopher1234 2y ago
*meemaw

cubefox 2y ago

[flagged]

squigz 2y ago
With the previous system being famously meritocratic...
- cubefox 2y ago
  What's your argument?
  - atrus 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. 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 ago
      The 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 ago
Sure. 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 ago
  Only 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 ago

Is that what they are saying?