3 ms·

I think proponents don't even understand the basics of relationships, which is surprising since these ideas stem mostly from fields that generally tend to have

I think proponents don't even understand the basics of relationships, which is surprising since these ideas stem mostly from fields that generally tend to have a focus here. It is like they want to apply the handbook of toxic middle management. If you want to create strive in your minions, provide benefits to one group while disadvantaging the other. They will hate each other more than they will hate you and you can reign supreme. This is usually basic psychology or at least it is proved to work. Universal humanism also empirically works better than what DEI proposes. DEI gratifies self-important people to elevate themselves and their ideas above others and little else. None of them would step back to be an example, so they are probably dishonest too. If people dislike it, which many do, it is usually correct and not due some made up bias.

RHSeeger 1y ago
Your argument is basically - Group 1 is doing well - Group 2 is doing poorly, because the system works in favor of group 1 - We should NOT try to balance things (lift up group 2 at the cost of group 2) in the short term so that things are more balanced in the long term - Because doing so would upset Group 1 See, the thing is... Group 2 is _already_ upset; and rightfully so. I'd rather see both groups of people somewhat upset then one group happy and the other _more_ upset. Honestly, that's pretty much a cliche description of what a compromise is.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  No, that is not my argument and you don't understand the relationship dynamic. Group 1 would be justifiably upset because they aren't treated as equals to group 2. You are completely free to provide benefits for the poorest as well. If you see yourself in group 1, you are very free to take a step back. We both know you don't, you expect that from others. Neither "balance" nor "long term goals" are in any way defined, you just use random discrimination, which is of course negative between a bunch of negative ideas. You also draw lines between these group 1 + 2.

RHSeeger 1y ago

Your argument is basically - Group 1 is doing well - Group 2 is doing poorly, because the system works in favor of group 1 - We should NOT try to balance things (lift up group 2 at the cost of group 2) in the short term so that things are more balanced in the long term - Because doing so would upset Group 1 See, the thing is... Group 2 is _already_ upset; and rightfully so. I'd rather see both groups of people somewhat upset then one group happy and the other _more_ upset. Honestly, that's pretty much a cliche description of what a compromise is.

raxxorraxor 1y ago
No, that is not my argument and you don't understand the relationship dynamic. Group 1 would be justifiably upset because they aren't treated as equals to group 2. You are completely free to provide benefits for the poorest as well. If you see yourself in group 1, you are very free to take a step back. We both know you don't, you expect that from others. Neither "balance" nor "long term goals" are in any way defined, you just use random discrimination, which is of course negative between a bunch of negative ideas. You also draw lines between these group 1 + 2.