5 ms·

> a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion Unrelated to AI, but a wonderful support of the breadth of humanity in th

> a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion Unrelated to AI, but a wonderful support of the breadth of humanity in this anti-DEI time. > We must, then, avoid the “Babel syndrome,” namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language — even a digital one — can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance. There is a lot to read here. I am curious where the meditations on the 'mystery of the person' will go: a brief search doesn't show further mention. The encyclical appears to focus on exhortations for us, humans, than on the nature of AI. Probably wise at this stage. I feel it is not AI that is either positive or negative, but its use of it, and the call-out to the growth of private industry as more powerful among nation-states is a strong statement for a institute like the Vatican to make: > Technological power thus takes on an unprecedented, predominantly “private” aspect, which makes it even more challenging to discern, govern and direct such power toward the common good.

vintagedave 5mo ago
I fear I have committed the sin (I mean that word, here) of commenting before reading the entire article. Often it is the comments that set the tone of interpretation and communication more than the article itself, because people read the comments, not the article. To somewhat mitigate that, here are items that are striking me as I read more. (I hope you'll forgive that this still directs the comment in the direction of my own lense.) I'll keep updating the comment. > Looking at our own time, we cannot ignore the fact that the protection of human rights [as declared by the United Nations in 1948] has been exposed to two particularly serious dangers. The first is that these rights are declared in a purely formal sense, while technological progress continues alongside covert or overt violations of human dignity. I read this as a warning of how rights are words, but actions are performed regardless of them. It aligns with something I've been trying to word, which is that as I've seen more and more abuses of power, I've come to believe that ethics requires external accountability, which can often require its own power - a conclusion I don't want to come to; I would prefer social agreement and communal spirit rather than external power. But either way, I do feel it's very clear there are a lot of people, very much in tech too, who simply do what they want regardless of its harm. They justify it to themselves; they don't stop themselves; no one externally stops them. > Along with a greater awareness of the value of every human person and their rights, recognition of minority rights has also grown. Yet, there is still a long way to go to ensure that the rights of a great many, namely women [are guaranteed.] It is, therefore, not enough to state simply that men and women have equal dignity and rights; it is necessary that this be reflected in concrete decisions, such as in laws, access to employment, education, social and political responsibilities, and the way society listens to and values women’s contributions. In 2026 American politics terms, this reads as pro-DEI to me. > the first major principle of Social Doctrine that I wish to highlight: the common good. We can describe it as the social expression of the dignity recognized in every person. ... For a Christian, going beyond the narrow confines of one’s own interests and committing oneself, within the limits of one’s ability, to the common good is a non-negotiable value, as is the promotion of life. 'Non-negotiable.' Very clear words. > When politics abandons a long-term perspective and reduces itself to short-term calculations or sterile polarizations, then the language of the common good loses credibility, and, at the same time, social inequalities and divisions grow. > 64. This also applies to international politics. and, > I invite everyone to conceive of ways of cooperating and of more effective international institutions, capable of safeguarding the global common good without compromising the legitimate diversity of peoples and nations. Indeed, the promotion of the common good can never be separated from respect for the right of peoples to exist, to preserve their own identity and to contribute their unique qualities to the family of nations. I love the support for international cooperation and peace and organisations that support it. It reminds me of the post-WW2 sense, the era that gave rise to the United Nations, Unicef, etc - organisations almost forgotten in the news we see on HN today, with the possible exception of the WHO. > [84] Moreover, any attempt or plan to eliminate or subjugate a nation is gravely immoral and therefore unacceptable. The beauty of this - or its tragedy - is that it is so easy to apply to many situations today, actions undertaken by many nations.
- vintagedave 5mo ago
  > the earth’s goods — soil, water, air and natural resources — are given by God to the entire human family to sustain the lives of all, and that every person has an inherent right to the use of such goods, both now and in the future. ... Today, we are called to recognize that this universal destination applies not only to material goods, but also to immaterial and cultural goods. Immaterial and cultural goods. This is a fascinating view on non-tangibles and one I feel inspired by. Reading this I asked myself (wait for the larger quote in a minute) how this affects views of IP, learning when texts are not available, cultural impact of characters and stories, the output from universities, publication of papers, ownership of research done by public or even private (!) funds, and more. Particularly I wonder about open weights vs open source for AI, and open source as a concept: where the old-school 'free software' GPLed version seems -- perhaps I am showing my bias -- most aligned with the ethical stance here? > 66. Certainly there is a right to private property, which has its own specific meaning and purpose, yet it is always subordinate to the universal destination of goods. 'Always subordinate'. > among the goods that are universally intended for everyone, we must also include new forms of property, such as patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data. In a context where the wealth of nations depends increasingly on knowledge and technology, when these goods remain concentrated in the hands of a few, without adequate forms of sharing and access, a new imbalance is created that contradicts the universal destination of goods. In turn, it widens the gap between the included and the excluded, between those who can participate in the digital revolution and those who remain on the margins. Wow! I cannot interpret this; it's not my right. But moving from the questions I asked above, to this paragraph, is powerful.
  - hammock 5mo ago
    I think he is saying we need big cross-border government to force compliance and fight against Trump and his cronies, and more taxes / debt to fund this
  - vintagedave 5mo ago
    > I'll keep updating the comment. For future reference, ten hours later I have still not finished reading all of it. It would make a great blog post to continue this comment thread once done.
boxed 5mo ago
> > a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion > Unrelated to AI, but a wonderful support of the breadth of humanity in this anti-DEI time. I mean.. DEI was in reality homogenization and eliminated diversity. Just because you agreed with the small amount of allowed opinions/people doesn't make it more diverse.
- vermilingua 5mo ago
  Perhaps, perhaps not; but you can't possibly argue that the current anti-DEI climate better fosters diversity than a pro-DEI or a-DEI environment.
  - boxed 5mo ago
    Agreed. Especially since it radicalizes the woke side even more, it's an escalating war leaving everyone worse off.
- Forgeties79 5mo ago
  The anti-DEI “movement,” especially what we see in the US, is mostly thinly veiled racism by another name. All one has to see is how frequently people call any non-white/non-male hire or appointment a “DEI-hire” because they can’t possibly conceive that marginalized groups would see any success based on merit. They start from a position where they are all incompetent and being given an unfair advantage until proven otherwise. It’s also on you to guess whatever their arbitrary bar is.
  - 9087653545 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - Curosinono 5mo ago
      The racial quota is used to support minorites. You don't need to generate a new account just to spew racism. You can argue that yo udon't think DEI helps and suggest an alternative but DEI is not racism even if you put it like this on purpose.
bombcar 5mo ago
The “mystery of the person” is a common theme in Catholicism - it can be seen in other (especially the “social”) encyclicals. Rerum Novarum by the current pope’s namesake is worth a study.
- vintagedave 5mo ago
  Thankyou. I am not Catholic so was unfamiliar with the term. I'll read about it.
- irdc 5mo ago
  Not a Roman Catholic but I am occasionally interested in what the Church has to say on ethical matters. What does the Church understand by "mystery of the person", and how does it relate to the assertion by the Church that, for example, gender (one aspect of the human subjective experience) can be understood purely in terms of biology?[0] 0. https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-churchs-position-on-transgenderism-0 https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-churchs-position-on-transgen...
  - learntofly 5mo ago
    “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27, ESV)
    - irdc 5mo ago
      Sure, but that was before the Fall.
      - sorokod 5mo ago
        You have to Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate The Positive
      - deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
  - ricardobeat 5mo ago
fatherzine 5mo ago
'you shall have no other gods before me'. operationally, a warning. false worship is dangerous. we get what we worship (value above all, orient towards, optimize for). heaven or hell, read it immanently or transcendentally, personally or collectively. either way, choosing the right worship is paramount. the conundrum: what is the right objective? puerile attempts, eg "maximize flourishing" or perhaps "minimize suffering" are trivially countered by paperclip machines fulfilling the letter while laying utter waste 'mystery of the person' given the context, some keywords for orientation: free will, rejection of temptation, the cross
Curosinono 5mo ago
You are joking with your anti-DEI comment right? You do know that you do talk about the christian church? They do nothing to include everyone. They are not standing up when it counts or excumante churches and believes who do not follow proper humanitarity. They are not even in the forefront of fighting climate change which hurts billions.
po1nt 5mo ago
I don't believe there was an era in history more DEI accepting than nowadays.
- zaneyard 5mo ago
  What is the point of this comment? Do you mean to say we should cease the pursuit of DEI because we've "come so far"? Of course that's engaging with you with the assumption that you're not intentionally ignoring the weaponization of the movement in the US to further the goals of the current administration.
  - po1nt 5mo ago
    That would be a strawman. I am not living in US and don't care about US politics other than they are rising my diesel prices. I'm just pointing out that historically this is the most DEI friendly we have ever been. If americans would be able to see outside a 4 year election cycle and realise there is a whole world outside the TDS zone, we could have a more civilised conversation than throwing strawmans around.
    - zaneyard 5mo ago
      I'm not refuting what you said, I'm asking you to elaborate why you said it.
      - po1nt 5mo ago
        Because I feel like it's unappreciative to act like we didn't make any progress. It's really degrading to people that really did put in an effort (like myself). It's like comming to a celebration of a sport victory with "you could have done better" attitude. So let's now focus on why you assumed a hidden meaning somehow connected to "current administration"? Why this knee jerk reaction?
idiotsecant 5mo ago
We should just stop using the term DEI. It has been demonized in the common parlance so successfully that to a ton of people it no longer means 'people who are different are made valuable by that difference'- it's been demonized into essentially meaning 'give black people and women jobs they don't deserve'. It's a prime example of propaganda through language pollution. For whatever reason HN has been slowly goose stepping towards the future lately so I expect this to go over like a lead balloon but I don't much care.
- urbnspacecowboy 5mo ago
  > We should just stop using the term DEI. It has been demonized in the common parlance... We should just stop using the term woke. It has been demonized in the common parlance... We should just stop using the term social justice. It has been demonized in the common parlance... We should just stop using the term critical race theory. It has been demonized in the common parlance... We should just stop using the term diversity. It has been demonized in the common parlance... And on and on and on. Why should we stop using terms because bigots demonize them "in the common parlance"? Bigots demonize every term.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 5mo ago
    Feel free to use either, but you will be summarily ignored.
  - bigstrat2003 5mo ago
    You should consider the possibility that the hostility towards those who disagree with you (i.e. assuming they are bigots rather than good faith interlocutors) is part of why your efforts are met with resistance. Simply put: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
- mullingitover 5mo ago
  > We should just stop using the term DEI. It has been demonized in the common parlance so successfully Whatever term you pick to describe a concerted effort to overcome the tendency to bigotry, they'll just hijack that, too. There's a whole industry built around this, and the media is so receptive to the right-wing that they'll openly describe how they'll do it[1], will execute the plans in public, and the mainstream media will act as their stenographers. [1] https://xcancel.com/sykescharlie/status/1396844806547050499 https://xcancel.com/sykescharlie/status/1396844806547050499
anjel 5mo ago
[flagged]
Manuel_D 5mo ago
Opposition to DEI is not opposition to diversity so much as it is opposition to discrimination. More than just discrimination, DEI often came in the form of a particularly dishonest and two faced approach to it. Unlike affirmative action - which in my experience tends to acknowledge that sometimes justice requires a measured and deliberate exception to equality - DEI often tried to simultaneously condemn the idea that we were discriminating in favor of certain groups, while also effecting policies that were overtly discriminatory. If I told my executives I would dock their pay if they exceeded a cap of X% men in their org, would that be discrimination? I doubt many would contest that issuing explicit penalties for breaking a cap on a particular gender. Ah, but what if I gave executives a bonus for reaching an "inclusion milestone" of (100-X)% women? That's not discrimination - that's DEI. Microsoft [1] and Intel [2] both instituted this policy. My own past employers extended this logic to headcount. In 2019 we instituted a policy of reserving EDP (engineering, product, & design) headcount for "diverse" candidates. What does does "diverse" mean? It means women of any race, as well as Black and Latino men - though in practice >95% of "diverse" candidates were white and Asian women. Each quarter, 20 heads were reserved for hiring "diverse" candidates, and when managers hired from this reserved pool it did not count towards their allocated headcount. You see, if I have a headcount of 100 and I exclude men from applying to 20 of those, then that's discrimination. But if I have a headcount of 80 and we allocate 20 additional headcount that's exclusively available to women, that's not discrimination that's DEI. This is why, as contradictory as it may sound, I do consider myself supportive of affirmative action, but opposed to DEI. Certainly there are some groups that implement DEI in a transparent and honest manner, but my read is that DEI tends to be done in a two-faced manner while "affirmative action" carries the connotation of being upfront that sometimes equality needs to be honored in the breach to ameliorate the unequal circumstances of reality. 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/microsoft-to-tie-executive-bonuses-to-company-diversity-goals https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/microsoft... 2. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-...
- canibal 5mo ago
  [flagged]
kendallpark 5mo ago
"Mystery" is a theological concept that is translated from the Greek word "mustérion." [1] Mysterious, mystical, secret, divine, not fully revealed. This sort of ineffable, irreducible truth you can touch but cannot fully grasp. The reaction of astronauts to seeing Earth from space -- the mystery of creation. Parents seeing pieces of themselves echoed in their children who are nonetheless distinct and surprising -- the mystery of the person. Much of the meditations in the encyclical are related to human dignity and fraternity. An example: > Finitude, when truly accepted, does not diminish us but opens us to recognizing the face of God and others. Indeed, precisely because we experience limits — vulnerability, suffering and failure — we can recognize the inviolable dignity of every person, both our own and that of others. [1] https://biblehub.com/greek/3466.htm https://biblehub.com/greek/3466.htm

vintagedave 5mo ago

I fear I have committed the sin (I mean that word, here) of commenting before reading the entire article. Often it is the comments that set the tone of interpretation and communication more than the article itself, because people read the comments, not the article. To somewhat mitigate that, here are items that are striking me as I read more. (I hope you'll forgive that this still directs the comment in the direction of my own lense.) I'll keep updating the comment. > Looking at our own time, we cannot ignore the fact that the protection of human rights [as declared by the United Nations in 1948] has been exposed to two particularly serious dangers. The first is that these rights are declared in a purely formal sense, while technological progress continues alongside covert or overt violations of human dignity. I read this as a warning of how rights are words, but actions are performed regardless of them. It aligns with something I've been trying to word, which is that as I've seen more and more abuses of power, I've come to believe that ethics requires external accountability, which can often require its own power - a conclusion I don't want to come to; I would prefer social agreement and communal spirit rather than external power. But either way, I do feel it's very clear there are a lot of people, very much in tech too, who simply do what they want regardless of its harm. They justify it to themselves; they don't stop themselves; no one externally stops them. > Along with a greater awareness of the value of every human person and their rights, recognition of minority rights has also grown. Yet, there is still a long way to go to ensure that the rights of a great many, namely women [are guaranteed.] It is, therefore, not enough to state simply that men and women have equal dignity and rights; it is necessary that this be reflected in concrete decisions, such as in laws, access to employment, education, social and political responsibilities, and the way society listens to and values women’s contributions. In 2026 American politics terms, this reads as pro-DEI to me. > the first major principle of Social Doctrine that I wish to highlight: the common good. We can describe it as the social expression of the dignity recognized in every person. ... For a Christian, going beyond the narrow confines of one’s own interests and committing oneself, within the limits of one’s ability, to the common good is a non-negotiable value, as is the promotion of life. 'Non-negotiable.' Very clear words. > When politics abandons a long-term perspective and reduces itself to short-term calculations or sterile polarizations, then the language of the common good loses credibility, and, at the same time, social inequalities and divisions grow. > 64. This also applies to international politics. and, > I invite everyone to conceive of ways of cooperating and of more effective international institutions, capable of safeguarding the global common good without compromising the legitimate diversity of peoples and nations. Indeed, the promotion of the common good can never be separated from respect for the right of peoples to exist, to preserve their own identity and to contribute their unique qualities to the family of nations. I love the support for international cooperation and peace and organisations that support it. It reminds me of the post-WW2 sense, the era that gave rise to the United Nations, Unicef, etc - organisations almost forgotten in the news we see on HN today, with the possible exception of the WHO. > [84] Moreover, any attempt or plan to eliminate or subjugate a nation is gravely immoral and therefore unacceptable. The beauty of this - or its tragedy - is that it is so easy to apply to many situations today, actions undertaken by many nations.

vintagedave 5mo ago
> the earth’s goods — soil, water, air and natural resources — are given by God to the entire human family to sustain the lives of all, and that every person has an inherent right to the use of such goods, both now and in the future. ... Today, we are called to recognize that this universal destination applies not only to material goods, but also to immaterial and cultural goods. Immaterial and cultural goods. This is a fascinating view on non-tangibles and one I feel inspired by. Reading this I asked myself (wait for the larger quote in a minute) how this affects views of IP, learning when texts are not available, cultural impact of characters and stories, the output from universities, publication of papers, ownership of research done by public or even private (!) funds, and more. Particularly I wonder about open weights vs open source for AI, and open source as a concept: where the old-school 'free software' GPLed version seems -- perhaps I am showing my bias -- most aligned with the ethical stance here? > 66. Certainly there is a right to private property, which has its own specific meaning and purpose, yet it is always subordinate to the universal destination of goods. 'Always subordinate'. > among the goods that are universally intended for everyone, we must also include new forms of property, such as patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data. In a context where the wealth of nations depends increasingly on knowledge and technology, when these goods remain concentrated in the hands of a few, without adequate forms of sharing and access, a new imbalance is created that contradicts the universal destination of goods. In turn, it widens the gap between the included and the excluded, between those who can participate in the digital revolution and those who remain on the margins. Wow! I cannot interpret this; it's not my right. But moving from the questions I asked above, to this paragraph, is powerful.
- hammock 5mo ago
  I think he is saying we need big cross-border government to force compliance and fight against Trump and his cronies, and more taxes / debt to fund this
- vintagedave 5mo ago
  > I'll keep updating the comment. For future reference, ten hours later I have still not finished reading all of it. It would make a great blog post to continue this comment thread once done.

boxed 5mo ago

> > a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion > Unrelated to AI, but a wonderful support of the breadth of humanity in this anti-DEI time. I mean.. DEI was in reality homogenization and eliminated diversity. Just because you agreed with the small amount of allowed opinions/people doesn't make it more diverse.

vermilingua 5mo ago
Perhaps, perhaps not; but you can't possibly argue that the current anti-DEI climate better fosters diversity than a pro-DEI or a-DEI environment.
- boxed 5mo ago
  Agreed. Especially since it radicalizes the woke side even more, it's an escalating war leaving everyone worse off.
Forgeties79 5mo ago
The anti-DEI “movement,” especially what we see in the US, is mostly thinly veiled racism by another name. All one has to see is how frequently people call any non-white/non-male hire or appointment a “DEI-hire” because they can’t possibly conceive that marginalized groups would see any success based on merit. They start from a position where they are all incompetent and being given an unfair advantage until proven otherwise. It’s also on you to guess whatever their arbitrary bar is.
- 9087653545 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Curosinono 5mo ago
    The racial quota is used to support minorites. You don't need to generate a new account just to spew racism. You can argue that yo udon't think DEI helps and suggest an alternative but DEI is not racism even if you put it like this on purpose.

bombcar 5mo ago

The “mystery of the person” is a common theme in Catholicism - it can be seen in other (especially the “social”) encyclicals. Rerum Novarum by the current pope’s namesake is worth a study.

vintagedave 5mo ago
Thankyou. I am not Catholic so was unfamiliar with the term. I'll read about it.
irdc 5mo ago
Not a Roman Catholic but I am occasionally interested in what the Church has to say on ethical matters. What does the Church understand by "mystery of the person", and how does it relate to the assertion by the Church that, for example, gender (one aspect of the human subjective experience) can be understood purely in terms of biology?[0] 0. https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-churchs-position-on-transgenderism-0 https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-churchs-position-on-transgen...
- learntofly 5mo ago
  “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27, ESV)
  - irdc 5mo ago
    Sure, but that was before the Fall.
    - sorokod 5mo ago
      You have to Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate The Positive
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
- ricardobeat 5mo ago

fatherzine 5mo ago

'you shall have no other gods before me'. operationally, a warning. false worship is dangerous. we get what we worship (value above all, orient towards, optimize for). heaven or hell, read it immanently or transcendentally, personally or collectively. either way, choosing the right worship is paramount. the conundrum: what is the right objective? puerile attempts, eg "maximize flourishing" or perhaps "minimize suffering" are trivially countered by paperclip machines fulfilling the letter while laying utter waste 'mystery of the person' given the context, some keywords for orientation: free will, rejection of temptation, the cross

Curosinono 5mo ago

You are joking with your anti-DEI comment right? You do know that you do talk about the christian church? They do nothing to include everyone. They are not standing up when it counts or excumante churches and believes who do not follow proper humanitarity. They are not even in the forefront of fighting climate change which hurts billions.

po1nt 5mo ago

I don't believe there was an era in history more DEI accepting than nowadays.

zaneyard 5mo ago
What is the point of this comment? Do you mean to say we should cease the pursuit of DEI because we've "come so far"? Of course that's engaging with you with the assumption that you're not intentionally ignoring the weaponization of the movement in the US to further the goals of the current administration.
- po1nt 5mo ago
  That would be a strawman. I am not living in US and don't care about US politics other than they are rising my diesel prices. I'm just pointing out that historically this is the most DEI friendly we have ever been. If americans would be able to see outside a 4 year election cycle and realise there is a whole world outside the TDS zone, we could have a more civilised conversation than throwing strawmans around.
  - zaneyard 5mo ago
    I'm not refuting what you said, I'm asking you to elaborate why you said it.
    - po1nt 5mo ago
      Because I feel like it's unappreciative to act like we didn't make any progress. It's really degrading to people that really did put in an effort (like myself). It's like comming to a celebration of a sport victory with "you could have done better" attitude. So let's now focus on why you assumed a hidden meaning somehow connected to "current administration"? Why this knee jerk reaction?

idiotsecant 5mo ago

We should just stop using the term DEI. It has been demonized in the common parlance so successfully that to a ton of people it no longer means 'people who are different are made valuable by that difference'- it's been demonized into essentially meaning 'give black people and women jobs they don't deserve'. It's a prime example of propaganda through language pollution. For whatever reason HN has been slowly goose stepping towards the future lately so I expect this to go over like a lead balloon but I don't much care.

urbnspacecowboy 5mo ago
> We should just stop using the term DEI. It has been demonized in the common parlance... We should just stop using the term woke. It has been demonized in the common parlance... We should just stop using the term social justice. It has been demonized in the common parlance... We should just stop using the term critical race theory. It has been demonized in the common parlance... We should just stop using the term diversity. It has been demonized in the common parlance... And on and on and on. Why should we stop using terms because bigots demonize them "in the common parlance"? Bigots demonize every term.
- iugtmkbdfil834 5mo ago
  Feel free to use either, but you will be summarily ignored.
- bigstrat2003 5mo ago
  You should consider the possibility that the hostility towards those who disagree with you (i.e. assuming they are bigots rather than good faith interlocutors) is part of why your efforts are met with resistance. Simply put: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
mullingitover 5mo ago
> We should just stop using the term DEI. It has been demonized in the common parlance so successfully Whatever term you pick to describe a concerted effort to overcome the tendency to bigotry, they'll just hijack that, too. There's a whole industry built around this, and the media is so receptive to the right-wing that they'll openly describe how they'll do it[1], will execute the plans in public, and the mainstream media will act as their stenographers. [1] https://xcancel.com/sykescharlie/status/1396844806547050499 https://xcancel.com/sykescharlie/status/1396844806547050499

anjel 5mo ago

[flagged]

Manuel_D 5mo ago

Opposition to DEI is not opposition to diversity so much as it is opposition to discrimination. More than just discrimination, DEI often came in the form of a particularly dishonest and two faced approach to it. Unlike affirmative action - which in my experience tends to acknowledge that sometimes justice requires a measured and deliberate exception to equality - DEI often tried to simultaneously condemn the idea that we were discriminating in favor of certain groups, while also effecting policies that were overtly discriminatory. If I told my executives I would dock their pay if they exceeded a cap of X% men in their org, would that be discrimination? I doubt many would contest that issuing explicit penalties for breaking a cap on a particular gender. Ah, but what if I gave executives a bonus for reaching an "inclusion milestone" of (100-X)% women? That's not discrimination - that's DEI. Microsoft [1] and Intel [2] both instituted this policy. My own past employers extended this logic to headcount. In 2019 we instituted a policy of reserving EDP (engineering, product, & design) headcount for "diverse" candidates. What does does "diverse" mean? It means women of any race, as well as Black and Latino men - though in practice >95% of "diverse" candidates were white and Asian women. Each quarter, 20 heads were reserved for hiring "diverse" candidates, and when managers hired from this reserved pool it did not count towards their allocated headcount. You see, if I have a headcount of 100 and I exclude men from applying to 20 of those, then that's discrimination. But if I have a headcount of 80 and we allocate 20 additional headcount that's exclusively available to women, that's not discrimination that's DEI. This is why, as contradictory as it may sound, I do consider myself supportive of affirmative action, but opposed to DEI. Certainly there are some groups that implement DEI in a transparent and honest manner, but my read is that DEI tends to be done in a two-faced manner while "affirmative action" carries the connotation of being upfront that sometimes equality needs to be honored in the breach to ameliorate the unequal circumstances of reality. 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/microsoft-to-tie-executive-bonuses-to-company-diversity-goals https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/microsoft... 2. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-...

canibal 5mo ago
[flagged]

kendallpark 5mo ago

"Mystery" is a theological concept that is translated from the Greek word "mustérion." [1] Mysterious, mystical, secret, divine, not fully revealed. This sort of ineffable, irreducible truth you can touch but cannot fully grasp. The reaction of astronauts to seeing Earth from space -- the mystery of creation. Parents seeing pieces of themselves echoed in their children who are nonetheless distinct and surprising -- the mystery of the person. Much of the meditations in the encyclical are related to human dignity and fraternity. An example: > Finitude, when truly accepted, does not diminish us but opens us to recognizing the face of God and others. Indeed, precisely because we experience limits — vulnerability, suffering and failure — we can recognize the inviolable dignity of every person, both our own and that of others. [1] https://biblehub.com/greek/3466.htm https://biblehub.com/greek/3466.htm