4 ms·

> But didn't women benefit from DEI? I see some workplaces and occupations completely woman dominated locally I'm not sure what you're asking, here. Do you thi

by jmye 1y ago

> But didn't women benefit from DEI? I see some workplaces and occupations completely woman dominated locally I'm not sure what you're asking, here. Do you think all of those women are only in those positions because of "DEI", and not because they're vastly more qualified than the men around them? Do you think other countries don't also value qualified and capable women? Or is this just some regurgitated Joe-Rogan-aligned schtick, where we just say code words and pretend like men are the only people who could possibly have any value?

DaveZale 1y ago
[flagged]
- jmye 1y ago
  My man, you kicked this off with "women are all DEI hires" and now you're doubling down with fact-free bullshit you're trying to pass off as "real historical facts". 1. What, specifically, was "DEI Frenzy"? 2. Why are you implying that those women and minorities were not the most capable people for the job? 3. Even if we suppose that the "DEI frenzy" nonsense is actually a real thing (and not a thing mediocre white boys and the YouTube manosphere invented so they could be angry they weren't given jobs and money just for showing up), why do you suppose that ensuring that more people who weren't previously applying for your jobs started applying wouldn't result in more women and minority hires? Your entire premise is nonsense you've invented or been fed and are now regurgitating, and now you're desperately trying to pretend I'm like, super duper mean for calling you out on it, because what you really want is to be aggrieved and a victim. It's boring and trite.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  > Just sayin' that the facts reveal - real historical facts - that 90% of corporate hiring at the peak of the DEI frenzy was "women and minority" .... I hope that you enjoyed it. Literally how the fuck is this "real historical facts". You can't just say something is "real historical facts", proceed to pull a number like 90% (???) directly out of your asshole, and then also try to take some high ground around civil discussions. Nobody wants to have a civil discussion with you because you're a liar and fundamentally a bad faith actor. There is no civil discussion to be had - you are incapable of understanding it.

by jmye 1y ago

DaveZale 1y ago

[flagged]

jmye 1y ago
My man, you kicked this off with "women are all DEI hires" and now you're doubling down with fact-free bullshit you're trying to pass off as "real historical facts". 1. What, specifically, was "DEI Frenzy"? 2. Why are you implying that those women and minorities were not the most capable people for the job? 3. Even if we suppose that the "DEI frenzy" nonsense is actually a real thing (and not a thing mediocre white boys and the YouTube manosphere invented so they could be angry they weren't given jobs and money just for showing up), why do you suppose that ensuring that more people who weren't previously applying for your jobs started applying wouldn't result in more women and minority hires? Your entire premise is nonsense you've invented or been fed and are now regurgitating, and now you're desperately trying to pretend I'm like, super duper mean for calling you out on it, because what you really want is to be aggrieved and a victim. It's boring and trite.
array_key_first 1y ago
> Just sayin' that the facts reveal - real historical facts - that 90% of corporate hiring at the peak of the DEI frenzy was "women and minority" .... I hope that you enjoyed it. Literally how the fuck is this "real historical facts". You can't just say something is "real historical facts", proceed to pull a number like 90% (???) directly out of your asshole, and then also try to take some high ground around civil discussions. Nobody wants to have a civil discussion with you because you're a liar and fundamentally a bad faith actor. There is no civil discussion to be had - you are incapable of understanding it.