4 ms·

DEI is toxic because it looks at racial and gender/identity bias as opposed to inequality as a class level. If you came from a disadvantaged background, we can

DEI is toxic because it looks at racial and gender/identity bias as opposed to inequality as a class level. If you came from a disadvantaged background, we can quantify that with wealth, which we can actually examine. You can see someone's bank account, parental background, education, etc. If you choose. Or, if you are lazy, you can look at their race and use that as a basis for choosing winners and losers. That's toxic and would only lead to conflicts because a) you're going to get it wrong necessarily. Take for example a poor Ukrainian immigrant (white) versus a second generation Indian (of color, yet in the highest income group statistically, above whites). b) you create a suspicious environment where now there's a quiet suspicion that the person in the cubicle next to you got there not out of merit but for other reasons. The solution to all of the above, in universities and workplaces, is to get people ahead if they are bright and come from poor backgrounds. And do our best to eliminate friends and cousins and networking buddies from getting in for that reason. How many companies give referral bonuses and how often are Hackernews suggestions for job hunting simply "network with everyone". Think about it. Is racial and gender bias truly the issue here? And be suspicious of anyone telling you what your 'unconscious' tells you, unless you're in a therapy session. It's certainly not a computer, an employee handbook or an HR representative who has any right to comment on such a thing.

unclebucknasty 2y ago
DEI acknowledges that there is a historical legacy of disenfranchisement that produced certain inequalities at community-scale. For instance, discrimination against some groups was actually codified for the overwhelming majority of U.S. history and, beyond that, the biases, social networks, etc. that arose over that history didn't suddenly end when the laws changed. They exist today. So, DEI accounts for this reality and is not inherently toxic. It's just been characterized as such to sow division in a cynical, revisionist effort to re-frame attempts to rectify the legacy of discrimination as the actual discrimination.
- leereeves 2y ago
  There are so many historic (and present) inequalities. DEI is toxic because it ignores most sources of inequality and favors a few groups of particular political importance to Democrats. In fact, sometimes DEI even favors groups who are on the advantaged side of inequality, like women in college, where they are nearly 60% of students.
  - mancerayder 2y ago
    Even worse - it created a new class that never really existed in the current form, namely 'of color', which includes a vast group of people both that have been historically disenfranchised as well as those who are in the highest tiers of per capita wealth in the U.S. by current statistical measures. People who have a generational claim to U.S. inequal structures, as the person you are replying to might say, as well as recent immigrants who have gone to top tier tech schools in their home countries, raised in the top caste of their home countries. A similar category is 'Hispanic', which within it has some people of extraordinary wealth. I know of one who used a half-Hispanic heritage to get into an undergrad Ivy League school, and proudly said he was gaming the system - extremely wealthy family. There are so many 'but that's an edge condition' situations one can come up with, that what ends up happening is a random collection of ways that you can 'register' to be in such an oppressed class (it's not hard to do, especially if you are an immigrant with immigrant parents, depending on where they were born, or if you want to be REALLY cynical and claim gender identity differences). And if you don't, you are left out and hence we have a big backlash and massive suspicion in the large corporations where these HR departments are taking a hammer in enforcing DEI in a sweet but firm tone. Even one who supports DEI efforts should at least understand this backlash. (This reply isn't geared specifically to the person I'm replying to, who seems to agree, but more broadly)
  - unclebucknasty 2y ago
    >DEI is toxic because it ignores most sources of inequality and favors a few groups Not sure what "most sources of inequality" is supposed to mean. In any case, DEI is not intended to address every "source of inequality". By definition: "DEI are organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination based on identity or disability." So, it is specifically intended to address historical targets of underrepresentation and discrimination. >...of particular political importance to Democrats The corollary is that anti-DEI favors a single group of particular importance to Republicans. Anti-DEI was a thing before there was DEI. That's the point of DEI. It's a response. >sometimes DEI even favors groups who are on the advantaged side of inequality... nearly 60% of students. It's easy to pick a statistic that we like. But, of course, this single stat is not dispositive of anything.
wakawaka28 2y ago
Focus on class inequality is another form of identity politics, in my opinion. But the conditions of various people in society is of some concern. We have to balance fairness in terms of equal rights under the law and the right to keep what you earn, and the fact that people naturally have different starting circumstances and different parents (who are well within their rights to take care of their children better than other parents). Just because someone else has more than you does not entitle you to more.
- mancerayder 2y ago
  I agree, it's another form of identity politics. Trying to break this down, I think: Either you believe in increasing equality in American society, or you don't. If you don't, well I think that is sort of the statement you are suggesting, which is, people have every right to be privileged, born or otherwise. If you do believe in increasing equality, then if you focus on class - let's just all it family wealth to avoid controversial loaded words - if you focus on family wealth and privilege people with less, then at least you're getting to the root of the issue. However, if you believe in increasing equality and you don't focus on wealth, and you care only about skin color or genital type or gender identity, then I think you're making the problem worse for the reasons I wrote in the parent thread here, the points around privileging the already privileged (i.e. upper class 'of color' people), while creating suspicion around anyone who's a minority ('my cubicle neighbor got here not out of merit'). All of this is toxic.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    There are two main causes of this problem. One is general economic stress. When people feel like they don't have enough, they look for ways to get more. For example, blaming people who have more for being "unfair" or something suggests you have a right to their property. The other is more insidious, which is pure greed. Some people, even people getting by just fine in life with minimal work, fantasize about taking down people who have more. They envy people who have more constantly and can't accept that some people actually deserve much more in life by virtue of luck or their hard work. >Either you believe in increasing equality in American society, or you don't. If you don't, well I think that is sort of the statement you are suggesting, which is, people have every right to be privileged, born or otherwise. I think privileged is a loaded word here. What I'm saying is that nobody has a right to equal monetary outcomes in general. If some people are colluding to prevent others from getting a fair shake, that should probably be stopped. You should have a right to compete fairly in the world and to accumulate the fruits of your labor. Of course this all gets very complicated when taxes and various other wealth redistribution schemes enter the picture. >However, if you believe in increasing equality and you don't focus on wealth, and you care only about skin color or genital type or gender identity, then I think you're making the problem worse for the reasons I wrote in the parent thread here, the points around privileging the already privileged (i.e. upper class 'of color' people), while creating suspicion around anyone who's a minority ('my cubicle neighbor got here not out of merit'). All of this is toxic. I agree with you, and the discrimination based on immutable characteristics is the worst because there's not much that the victim can do about it. Somehow, various minorities have been convinced that discrimination is OK so long as it benefits them, and that's wrong in general. It does make a lot more sense to think in terms of class lines and economic opportunity. But if that goes too far, it can become toxic as well. We don't need communism, we need people of all walks of life to have more compassion for their fellow man.
Vilian 2y ago
I look at this types of answers and think "god how selfish Americans can be" not only kill and discriminate group sof people from the entire history, you all still manage to fuck with the only thing trying to revert it

unclebucknasty 2y ago

DEI acknowledges that there is a historical legacy of disenfranchisement that produced certain inequalities at community-scale. For instance, discrimination against some groups was actually codified for the overwhelming majority of U.S. history and, beyond that, the biases, social networks, etc. that arose over that history didn't suddenly end when the laws changed. They exist today. So, DEI accounts for this reality and is not inherently toxic. It's just been characterized as such to sow division in a cynical, revisionist effort to re-frame attempts to rectify the legacy of discrimination as the actual discrimination.

leereeves 2y ago
There are so many historic (and present) inequalities. DEI is toxic because it ignores most sources of inequality and favors a few groups of particular political importance to Democrats. In fact, sometimes DEI even favors groups who are on the advantaged side of inequality, like women in college, where they are nearly 60% of students.
- mancerayder 2y ago
  Even worse - it created a new class that never really existed in the current form, namely 'of color', which includes a vast group of people both that have been historically disenfranchised as well as those who are in the highest tiers of per capita wealth in the U.S. by current statistical measures. People who have a generational claim to U.S. inequal structures, as the person you are replying to might say, as well as recent immigrants who have gone to top tier tech schools in their home countries, raised in the top caste of their home countries. A similar category is 'Hispanic', which within it has some people of extraordinary wealth. I know of one who used a half-Hispanic heritage to get into an undergrad Ivy League school, and proudly said he was gaming the system - extremely wealthy family. There are so many 'but that's an edge condition' situations one can come up with, that what ends up happening is a random collection of ways that you can 'register' to be in such an oppressed class (it's not hard to do, especially if you are an immigrant with immigrant parents, depending on where they were born, or if you want to be REALLY cynical and claim gender identity differences). And if you don't, you are left out and hence we have a big backlash and massive suspicion in the large corporations where these HR departments are taking a hammer in enforcing DEI in a sweet but firm tone. Even one who supports DEI efforts should at least understand this backlash. (This reply isn't geared specifically to the person I'm replying to, who seems to agree, but more broadly)
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >DEI is toxic because it ignores most sources of inequality and favors a few groups Not sure what "most sources of inequality" is supposed to mean. In any case, DEI is not intended to address every "source of inequality". By definition: "DEI are organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination based on identity or disability." So, it is specifically intended to address historical targets of underrepresentation and discrimination. >...of particular political importance to Democrats The corollary is that anti-DEI favors a single group of particular importance to Republicans. Anti-DEI was a thing before there was DEI. That's the point of DEI. It's a response. >sometimes DEI even favors groups who are on the advantaged side of inequality... nearly 60% of students. It's easy to pick a statistic that we like. But, of course, this single stat is not dispositive of anything.

wakawaka28 2y ago

Focus on class inequality is another form of identity politics, in my opinion. But the conditions of various people in society is of some concern. We have to balance fairness in terms of equal rights under the law and the right to keep what you earn, and the fact that people naturally have different starting circumstances and different parents (who are well within their rights to take care of their children better than other parents). Just because someone else has more than you does not entitle you to more.

mancerayder 2y ago
I agree, it's another form of identity politics. Trying to break this down, I think: Either you believe in increasing equality in American society, or you don't. If you don't, well I think that is sort of the statement you are suggesting, which is, people have every right to be privileged, born or otherwise. If you do believe in increasing equality, then if you focus on class - let's just all it family wealth to avoid controversial loaded words - if you focus on family wealth and privilege people with less, then at least you're getting to the root of the issue. However, if you believe in increasing equality and you don't focus on wealth, and you care only about skin color or genital type or gender identity, then I think you're making the problem worse for the reasons I wrote in the parent thread here, the points around privileging the already privileged (i.e. upper class 'of color' people), while creating suspicion around anyone who's a minority ('my cubicle neighbor got here not out of merit'). All of this is toxic.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  There are two main causes of this problem. One is general economic stress. When people feel like they don't have enough, they look for ways to get more. For example, blaming people who have more for being "unfair" or something suggests you have a right to their property. The other is more insidious, which is pure greed. Some people, even people getting by just fine in life with minimal work, fantasize about taking down people who have more. They envy people who have more constantly and can't accept that some people actually deserve much more in life by virtue of luck or their hard work. >Either you believe in increasing equality in American society, or you don't. If you don't, well I think that is sort of the statement you are suggesting, which is, people have every right to be privileged, born or otherwise. I think privileged is a loaded word here. What I'm saying is that nobody has a right to equal monetary outcomes in general. If some people are colluding to prevent others from getting a fair shake, that should probably be stopped. You should have a right to compete fairly in the world and to accumulate the fruits of your labor. Of course this all gets very complicated when taxes and various other wealth redistribution schemes enter the picture. >However, if you believe in increasing equality and you don't focus on wealth, and you care only about skin color or genital type or gender identity, then I think you're making the problem worse for the reasons I wrote in the parent thread here, the points around privileging the already privileged (i.e. upper class 'of color' people), while creating suspicion around anyone who's a minority ('my cubicle neighbor got here not out of merit'). All of this is toxic. I agree with you, and the discrimination based on immutable characteristics is the worst because there's not much that the victim can do about it. Somehow, various minorities have been convinced that discrimination is OK so long as it benefits them, and that's wrong in general. It does make a lot more sense to think in terms of class lines and economic opportunity. But if that goes too far, it can become toxic as well. We don't need communism, we need people of all walks of life to have more compassion for their fellow man.

Vilian 2y ago

I look at this types of answers and think "god how selfish Americans can be" not only kill and discriminate group sof people from the entire history, you all still manage to fuck with the only thing trying to revert it