Comment by thot_experiment

3 months ago

These are really good points, it's depressing as hell to see the the quality of discussion around this stuff. Obviously DEI is great when it's trying to fix things on the input side.

Perhaps I can simplify this argument. If you have a lift heavy things job, which we can agree that women on average are worse at, you shouldn't hire more women by quota, but you could provide free weight training for women. Both things are DEI, the latter is the kind of DEI we want.

7 comments

thot_experiment

Reply
ryandrake  3 months ago

I think in your example, you shouldn't hire by quota, but you also shouldn't exclude women or introduce obstacles that exclude them. It's so weird that this has turned into such a controversial statement!

int_19h  2 months ago

The problem is that DEI in practice tends to be the other kind of stuff. I think at this point it's actually kinda disingenuous to pretend that "DEI" is "just diversity, equity, and inclusion" (i.e. that you can just point at the dictionary definitions of these words to explain what it is). No, it's a very specific political mindset, and the label is now firmly associated with it. You can't say that "DEI is just equality" anymore so than you can say that about "all lives matter".

  • vkou  2 months ago

    > The problem is that DEI in practice tends to be the other kind of stuff

    And what does the political opposite of those initiatives look like in practice?

    What does it look like in practice when you don't stop and wonder why women make up 20% of your qualified candidate pool, but only 7% of your workforce? (As another poster observed.)

    Do you just shrug your shoulders, assume that your perfectly meritocratic (By whose definition?) system is free of any form of systemic or personal bias, and move on, without wondering why?

    • int_19h  2 months ago

      It's not wrong to stop and wonder why, but if you do, the answers are nearly always systemic, and cannot be solved at any single point by basically handicapping people to "make room".

typewithrhythm  2 months ago

The problem is both are still sexist; where is the money to pay for training coming from?

If it's a government initiative then it's taking from all to only give to women.

If it's a publicly owned company, then can you actually make a convincing case that it's a benefit to stockholders?

Only in the case of a private company does this lack ethical issues, but at that point it's just some billionaires whim.

  • thot_experiment  2 months ago

    Yes we actually want to take from everyone and give to disadvantaged people, we should do this as a society because even crudely implemented it is a good first approximation of capturing externalities shareholder value fails to.