4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - Forgeties79 5mo ago
      Is interesting to me that I often see that kind of default response (“racial quotas”) as if that’s all DEI is when you get down to it. It’s really about creating a space that includes everybody and creates opportunities for all. There are many ways to approach that. I know in my brief time being involved with a DEI initiative the discussion was never about how many of any particular demographic we hired. It was about asking if we had internal barriers that disproportionally impacted certain groups. I think that’s a very different mindset than “quotas.” But people arguing in bad faith generally aren’t looking for nuance so here we are. Edit: to be clear, this is directed at the other commenter not you
    - boxed 5mo ago
      How isn't it racism though? Separating people and counting them and giving them different treatment based on race is literally "discrimination" and "racism". The woke movement has distanced themselves from the teachings of Martin Luther King even. Literally quoting MLK was what got Coleman Hughes into trouble with TED. It's quite absurd.
- boxed 5mo ago
  > The anti-DEI “movement,” especially what we see in the US, is mostly thinly veiled racism by another name. The one we see on the news yea. But sane voices have been trying to stop this madness for decades and it only got worse and worse. Then fascists could easily scoop up such a clean win because the weapon was just lying there being ignored by the Democratic party. It's an own goal.
daveguy 5mo ago
DEI was only ever meant to reflect the diversity of society in our institutions (which historically have been and continue to be homogeneous compared to society). Of course there are better and worse ways to create the outcome of increased diversity. But thr recent backlash is the antithesis of diversity, wrapped up in the propaganda of "reverse racism."
- boxed 5mo ago
  > DEI was only ever meant to reflect the diversity of society in our institutions That sounds reasonable, but it's not really true. It was a tool to DISTORT the diversity of society by making minority groups front and center to a disproportionate degree. The more minority the better. This isn't reflecting the diversity of society, that's flipping it over. I'm not saying the intentions weren't good. They were. But good intentions don't matter after a certain point. Communism for example is all about good intentions and every time we try it it leads to mass casualties. After a while you have to wise up.
  - daveguy 5mo ago
    Why wouldn't there be a period when more diverse groups are accepted at a higher than societally present amount until representation is more balanced? Because little Johnny feels entitled to get preferetial treatment when the system works for him, but insists everything be absolutely fair when he's not the recipient? After a while you have to wise up. Quotas aren't the best way, but they are certainly the most straightforward way. Best way would be to provide the social safety nets that dumpty-doge gutted. If the applications are more diverse the quotas are less important (but possibly still important if there is discrimination on things like names).
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Manuel_D 5mo ago
      What you're describing is a straightforward violation of civil rights laws (assuming you're talking about the United States). Like it or not, "little Johnny" is just as protected from discrimination as these "more diverse groups". But I'll give you credit for your candor. Few DEI advocates are as honest as you about the movement's discriminatory nature.

by boxed 5mo ago

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.
  - Forgeties79 5mo ago
    Is interesting to me that I often see that kind of default response (“racial quotas”) as if that’s all DEI is when you get down to it. It’s really about creating a space that includes everybody and creates opportunities for all. There are many ways to approach that. I know in my brief time being involved with a DEI initiative the discussion was never about how many of any particular demographic we hired. It was about asking if we had internal barriers that disproportionally impacted certain groups. I think that’s a very different mindset than “quotas.” But people arguing in bad faith generally aren’t looking for nuance so here we are. Edit: to be clear, this is directed at the other commenter not you
  - boxed 5mo ago
    How isn't it racism though? Separating people and counting them and giving them different treatment based on race is literally "discrimination" and "racism". The woke movement has distanced themselves from the teachings of Martin Luther King even. Literally quoting MLK was what got Coleman Hughes into trouble with TED. It's quite absurd.
boxed 5mo ago
> The anti-DEI “movement,” especially what we see in the US, is mostly thinly veiled racism by another name. The one we see on the news yea. But sane voices have been trying to stop this madness for decades and it only got worse and worse. Then fascists could easily scoop up such a clean win because the weapon was just lying there being ignored by the Democratic party. It's an own goal.

daveguy 5mo ago

DEI was only ever meant to reflect the diversity of society in our institutions (which historically have been and continue to be homogeneous compared to society). Of course there are better and worse ways to create the outcome of increased diversity. But thr recent backlash is the antithesis of diversity, wrapped up in the propaganda of "reverse racism."

boxed 5mo ago
> DEI was only ever meant to reflect the diversity of society in our institutions That sounds reasonable, but it's not really true. It was a tool to DISTORT the diversity of society by making minority groups front and center to a disproportionate degree. The more minority the better. This isn't reflecting the diversity of society, that's flipping it over. I'm not saying the intentions weren't good. They were. But good intentions don't matter after a certain point. Communism for example is all about good intentions and every time we try it it leads to mass casualties. After a while you have to wise up.
- daveguy 5mo ago
  Why wouldn't there be a period when more diverse groups are accepted at a higher than societally present amount until representation is more balanced? Because little Johnny feels entitled to get preferetial treatment when the system works for him, but insists everything be absolutely fair when he's not the recipient? After a while you have to wise up. Quotas aren't the best way, but they are certainly the most straightforward way. Best way would be to provide the social safety nets that dumpty-doge gutted. If the applications are more diverse the quotas are less important (but possibly still important if there is discrimination on things like names).
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Manuel_D 5mo ago
    What you're describing is a straightforward violation of civil rights laws (assuming you're talking about the United States). Like it or not, "little Johnny" is just as protected from discrimination as these "more diverse groups". But I'll give you credit for your candor. Few DEI advocates are as honest as you about the movement's discriminatory nature.