2 ms·

Sorry, what's the difference between the former and the latter? My whole understanding of DEI is perfectly described by the thing you said is illegal. Otherwise

Sorry, what's the difference between the former and the latter? My whole understanding of DEI is perfectly described by the thing you said is illegal. Otherwise, you did not describe what "DEI" is, so I hope you can understand my confusion.

thaumasiotes 1y ago
"DEI" is the rebranding of "affirmative action",† which was itself a euphemism for distributing special privileges (most notably jobs, higher education placements, and loan approvals) to members of legally favored racial groups while punishing members of disfavored groups. All of the relevant laws specify that (1) you are not allowed to treat anybody differently based on their race, and (2) if your outcome numbers don't match what the government wants to see, there will be hell to pay. Only (2) can be directly measured, so that is the part of the law that's enforced. People report that they treat all races equally for the same reason that Soviet agriculture officials reported that the grain harvest was better than expected. † It's not clear to me why a rebranding was felt to be necessary. "Affirmative action" was popular; a lot of the loss in status of this type of initiative seems to be fairly directly related to the fact that, once the name was changed, people could reevaluate the concept without being confused by the preexisting knowledge that they approved of it.
- freejazz 1y ago
  You think people were getting loan approvals because they were minorities? And that it was also at the cost of "disfavored groups"? Is there anything to back this up? Redlining was a real phenomenon. You might not agree with Coates or his proposed solution, but I've not seen anyone attack the numbers, which speak for themselves. I don't agree with pretty much the entirety of your post but that stuck out.
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    > You think people were getting loan approvals because they were minorities? Of course; it is a major focus of governmental affirmative action efforts. > Is there anything to back this up? Again, of course. > Redlining was a real phenomenon. And? Do you think it was a real phenomenon after the 1960s? School segregation was a real phenomenon too; in your opinion, does that mean that modern schools do not admit applicants because they are favored minorities? Before deciding whether you approve of a government program, maybe you should learn what it involves.

thaumasiotes 1y ago

"DEI" is the rebranding of "affirmative action",† which was itself a euphemism for distributing special privileges (most notably jobs, higher education placements, and loan approvals) to members of legally favored racial groups while punishing members of disfavored groups. All of the relevant laws specify that (1) you are not allowed to treat anybody differently based on their race, and (2) if your outcome numbers don't match what the government wants to see, there will be hell to pay. Only (2) can be directly measured, so that is the part of the law that's enforced. People report that they treat all races equally for the same reason that Soviet agriculture officials reported that the grain harvest was better than expected. † It's not clear to me why a rebranding was felt to be necessary. "Affirmative action" was popular; a lot of the loss in status of this type of initiative seems to be fairly directly related to the fact that, once the name was changed, people could reevaluate the concept without being confused by the preexisting knowledge that they approved of it.

freejazz 1y ago
You think people were getting loan approvals because they were minorities? And that it was also at the cost of "disfavored groups"? Is there anything to back this up? Redlining was a real phenomenon. You might not agree with Coates or his proposed solution, but I've not seen anyone attack the numbers, which speak for themselves. I don't agree with pretty much the entirety of your post but that stuck out.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  > You think people were getting loan approvals because they were minorities? Of course; it is a major focus of governmental affirmative action efforts. > Is there anything to back this up? Again, of course. > Redlining was a real phenomenon. And? Do you think it was a real phenomenon after the 1960s? School segregation was a real phenomenon too; in your opinion, does that mean that modern schools do not admit applicants because they are favored minorities? Before deciding whether you approve of a government program, maybe you should learn what it involves.