2 ms·
If they actually wanted to correct the bias, they would push for standardized testing. Instead, they parasitically push for their own positions, salaries, and t
by OutOfHere 1y ago
If they actually wanted to correct the bias, they would push for standardized testing. Instead, they parasitically push for their own positions, salaries, and to put on good theater. I see the difference and I am not amused.
Already males often suffer as a result.
- saubeidl 1y agoHow the testing is standardized is just another bias vector. There is no such thing as unbiased.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- cauch 1y agoSo what you are saying is that you see a bias against males, or a bias in "pro-DEI" people's behavior. But where is your standardized testing to prove that? Does it mean that you are not interested in finding the correct correction, but rather to push for a situation that profit you (either because it is directly advantageous, or because it says that "your side" is right and "their side" is wrong)? This is what I don't understand. Saying "bias = 0" is as much a critical decision as saying "bias = 17". But it looks like people can both say "they say there is a bias of 17 but they don't test it enough to my eyes so they are bad, we should act as if the bias was 0, and I don't do any testing but it is ok because my critics against them don't apply to me". (edit: also, I think that your argument "standardized testing" is just in bad faith. A lot of DEI policies come with method to measure the impact and process to adapt the correction level based on how things evolved. You may not like these methods, but these methods would simply not even exist if indeed they were not interested in finding the correct correction. It feels like it's an easy argument "they do stuff, but let's just decide it does not count unless I arbitrarily decide it does")