3 ms·

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

by daveguy 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Manuel_D 4mo 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.
    - daveguy 4mo ago
      Little Johnny isn't a protected class and never will be. Little Johnny has had 250+ years of preferential treatment behind him. Boohoo Little Johnny.
      - Manuel_D 4mo ago
        You seem to be misinformed about what protected class means: Race, gender, religion (including absence of religion), are all protected classes. It is irrelevant which race, gender, etc. is being favored or disfavored. The use of race as a factor in employment, in any way, is prohibited. It is not legal to discriminate against men any more than it is legal to discriminate against women. It is not legal to discriminate against whites and Asians any more than it is legal to discriminate against Black and Latin people. The idea that civil rights laws oly prohibit discrimination against some races and some genders while permitting discrimination against others is a very common piece of misinformation espoused by proponents of DEI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
        daveguy 4mo ago
        But also, preferential treatment for underserved communities is legal and does not mean anyone is being discriminated against. I.e., "reverse discrimination" is bullshit. Sorry.
        Manuel_D 4mo ago
        Repeating this doesn't make it true. Use of protected class as a factor in employment is illegal, regardless of which race or gender is being favored or disfavored. You're right, "reverse discrimination" is bullshit: it's just discrimination, regardless of who is being discriminated against. This was argued all the way up to the Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_v._Ohio_Department_of_Youth_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_v._Ohio_Department_of_You... Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to both the majority and the minority equally. And the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion was written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson no less! You're just wrong on the facts here.

by daveguy 4mo ago

boxed 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- Manuel_D 4mo 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.
  - daveguy 4mo ago
    Little Johnny isn't a protected class and never will be. Little Johnny has had 250+ years of preferential treatment behind him. Boohoo Little Johnny.
    - Manuel_D 4mo ago
      You seem to be misinformed about what protected class means: Race, gender, religion (including absence of religion), are all protected classes. It is irrelevant which race, gender, etc. is being favored or disfavored. The use of race as a factor in employment, in any way, is prohibited. It is not legal to discriminate against men any more than it is legal to discriminate against women. It is not legal to discriminate against whites and Asians any more than it is legal to discriminate against Black and Latin people. The idea that civil rights laws oly prohibit discrimination against some races and some genders while permitting discrimination against others is a very common piece of misinformation espoused by proponents of DEI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
      - daveguy 4mo ago
        But also, preferential treatment for underserved communities is legal and does not mean anyone is being discriminated against. I.e., "reverse discrimination" is bullshit. Sorry.
        Manuel_D 4mo ago
        Repeating this doesn't make it true. Use of protected class as a factor in employment is illegal, regardless of which race or gender is being favored or disfavored. You're right, "reverse discrimination" is bullshit: it's just discrimination, regardless of who is being discriminated against. This was argued all the way up to the Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_v._Ohio_Department_of_Youth_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_v._Ohio_Department_of_You... Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to both the majority and the minority equally. And the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion was written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson no less! You're just wrong on the facts here.