3 ms·

Trump and his ilk are literally “elites”, richest cabinet in history and that’s excluding the unelected SS cutter that meddles into everything. DEI, just so yo

Trump and his ilk are literally “elites”, richest cabinet in history and that’s excluding the unelected SS cutter that meddles into everything. DEI, just so you know, also covers programmes that help poor communities by providing funding for education.

leovingi 2y ago
My entire life, professional and otherwise, DEI has ultimately stood for nothing other than "less white people". Of course it's dressed up in definitions that sound beautiful and moral to the supporters of DEI, but at the end of the day whenever someone uses the term "diverse" they are talking about "less white people". When the company John Lewis was criticized for a lack of diversity [1], it was because they had too many whites. When the Academy Awards were criticized for a lack of diversity [2], it was because they had too many whites. When the EU institutions were criticized for a lack of diversity [3], it was because they had too many whites. When the BAFTAs were criticized for a lack of diversity [4], it was because they had too many whites. When investigative journalism in the US was criticized for a lack of diversity [5], it was because they had too many whites. When the show "Friends" was criticized for a lack of diversity [6], it was because they had too many whites. After decades and decades of this blatant animosity against people like me I can honestly say I do not care at all what Trump does to these programs or how he goes about destroying them, as long as they are destroyed and the people that supported them punished. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/16/john-lewis-criticised-for-lack-of-diversity-in-uk-top-ranks https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/16/john-lewis-... [2] https://www.wishtv.com/news/awards-shows-have-been-criticized-for-their-lack-of-diversity-for-years-why-are-they-so-slow-to-change/ https://www.wishtv.com/news/awards-shows-have-been-criticize... [3] https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/oped-lack-of-racial-diversity-continues-to-blight-eu-affairs https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/oped-lack-... [4] https://www.willistonian.org/baftas-criticized-for-lack-of-diversity/ https://www.willistonian.org/baftas-criticized-for-lack-of-d... [5] https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2020/investigative-journalism-long-criticized-for-a-lack-of-diversity-has-made-significant-developments-since-march/ https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2020/investigative-jou... [6] https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/02/lack-of-diversity-on-friends-mocked-on-snl-after-years-of-criticism-18542168/ https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/02/lack-of-diversity-on-friends-...
- PartiallyTyped 2y ago
  And here I was talking about consequential stuff, like helping impoverished communities, adding guardrails to prevent old-boys clubs and enable skilled individuals to enter fields without prejudice for “being black” or “being gay”. Who cares about criticism over inconsequential stuff? Is it that difficult to care about impoverished people? The meals for kids at schools is a “dei” program, and republicans axed it, well done! The repubs are also sending kids to work overtime and during the night, effectively gutting their future, and of course it’s the impoverished kids who will have to do that.
  - leovingi 2y ago
    >helping impoverished communities, adding guardrails to prevent old-boys clubs and enable skilled individuals to enter fields without prejudice for “being black” or “being gay” Exactly, like I said - "it's dressed up in definitions that sound beautiful and moral to the supporters of DEI". I do not care for theoretical definitions of why your ideology is good and moral, I care about its practical effects on me and the world around me. And somehow, those practical effects always turn out to be "less white people". And I will NEVER support an ideology that disenfranchises me under the cover of equality!
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - PartiallyTyped 2y ago
      What I am expressing here is that practical things that all of us can agree are good and useful, such as helping impoverished kids, result in tangle positive consequences, an educated society has less crime, therefore net positive. This is a practical and real world positive consequence. >And somehow, those practical effects always turn out to be "less white people". In contrast to your silly and inconsequential examples of just "criticism", I presented examples where DEI has tangible and measurable results which are net positive. What you express, really, just shows confirmation bias, and you remain oblivious to all the positive things that have come out of "DEI" programmes that you have benefited from. Case in point, women die significantly more in car crashes [1] because law mandates male-sized dummies. Some diversity here in terms of gender would have pointed that out, but until the moment this was written, nothing was done. DEI programmes exist to avoid discrimination such as that one. > According to Verity Now, a US-based campaign group striving to achieve equity in vehicle safety, women are 73% more likely to be injured – and 17% more likely to die – in a vehicle crash. Earlier this year, a study of 70,000 patients who had been trapped in vehicles found that women were more frequently trapped than men. > Part of the problem is that test dummies modeled on the average female body are rarely used in safety tests by car manufacturers – because only “male” dummies are mandated for tests by regulators. So I don't believe you will ever change or your mind or opinion, and you are discussing in bad faith, rendering this conversation utterly useless. Here's my recommendation, if you are going to try to get me to see your side, instead of emitting strawman arguments, try a steelman one, and avoid sensationalism. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/15/world/female-car-crash-test-dummy-spc-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/15/world/female-car-crash-te...

leovingi 2y ago

My entire life, professional and otherwise, DEI has ultimately stood for nothing other than "less white people". Of course it's dressed up in definitions that sound beautiful and moral to the supporters of DEI, but at the end of the day whenever someone uses the term "diverse" they are talking about "less white people". When the company John Lewis was criticized for a lack of diversity [1], it was because they had too many whites. When the Academy Awards were criticized for a lack of diversity [2], it was because they had too many whites. When the EU institutions were criticized for a lack of diversity [3], it was because they had too many whites. When the BAFTAs were criticized for a lack of diversity [4], it was because they had too many whites. When investigative journalism in the US was criticized for a lack of diversity [5], it was because they had too many whites. When the show "Friends" was criticized for a lack of diversity [6], it was because they had too many whites. After decades and decades of this blatant animosity against people like me I can honestly say I do not care at all what Trump does to these programs or how he goes about destroying them, as long as they are destroyed and the people that supported them punished. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/16/john-lewis-criticised-for-lack-of-diversity-in-uk-top-ranks https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/16/john-lewis-... [2] https://www.wishtv.com/news/awards-shows-have-been-criticized-for-their-lack-of-diversity-for-years-why-are-they-so-slow-to-change/ https://www.wishtv.com/news/awards-shows-have-been-criticize... [3] https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/oped-lack-of-racial-diversity-continues-to-blight-eu-affairs https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/oped-lack-... [4] https://www.willistonian.org/baftas-criticized-for-lack-of-diversity/ https://www.willistonian.org/baftas-criticized-for-lack-of-d... [5] https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2020/investigative-journalism-long-criticized-for-a-lack-of-diversity-has-made-significant-developments-since-march/ https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2020/investigative-jou... [6] https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/02/lack-of-diversity-on-friends-mocked-on-snl-after-years-of-criticism-18542168/ https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/02/lack-of-diversity-on-friends-...

PartiallyTyped 2y ago
And here I was talking about consequential stuff, like helping impoverished communities, adding guardrails to prevent old-boys clubs and enable skilled individuals to enter fields without prejudice for “being black” or “being gay”. Who cares about criticism over inconsequential stuff? Is it that difficult to care about impoverished people? The meals for kids at schools is a “dei” program, and republicans axed it, well done! The repubs are also sending kids to work overtime and during the night, effectively gutting their future, and of course it’s the impoverished kids who will have to do that.
- leovingi 2y ago
  >helping impoverished communities, adding guardrails to prevent old-boys clubs and enable skilled individuals to enter fields without prejudice for “being black” or “being gay” Exactly, like I said - "it's dressed up in definitions that sound beautiful and moral to the supporters of DEI". I do not care for theoretical definitions of why your ideology is good and moral, I care about its practical effects on me and the world around me. And somehow, those practical effects always turn out to be "less white people". And I will NEVER support an ideology that disenfranchises me under the cover of equality!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - PartiallyTyped 2y ago
    What I am expressing here is that practical things that all of us can agree are good and useful, such as helping impoverished kids, result in tangle positive consequences, an educated society has less crime, therefore net positive. This is a practical and real world positive consequence. >And somehow, those practical effects always turn out to be "less white people". In contrast to your silly and inconsequential examples of just "criticism", I presented examples where DEI has tangible and measurable results which are net positive. What you express, really, just shows confirmation bias, and you remain oblivious to all the positive things that have come out of "DEI" programmes that you have benefited from. Case in point, women die significantly more in car crashes [1] because law mandates male-sized dummies. Some diversity here in terms of gender would have pointed that out, but until the moment this was written, nothing was done. DEI programmes exist to avoid discrimination such as that one. > According to Verity Now, a US-based campaign group striving to achieve equity in vehicle safety, women are 73% more likely to be injured – and 17% more likely to die – in a vehicle crash. Earlier this year, a study of 70,000 patients who had been trapped in vehicles found that women were more frequently trapped than men. > Part of the problem is that test dummies modeled on the average female body are rarely used in safety tests by car manufacturers – because only “male” dummies are mandated for tests by regulators. So I don't believe you will ever change or your mind or opinion, and you are discussing in bad faith, rendering this conversation utterly useless. Here's my recommendation, if you are going to try to get me to see your side, instead of emitting strawman arguments, try a steelman one, and avoid sensationalism. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/15/world/female-car-crash-test-dummy-spc-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/15/world/female-car-crash-te...