Comment by cmiles8
5 days ago
From what was reported there was a broad reduction of interest from sponsors. Speculation, but the late cancellation very much sounds like there was an effort to find a main sponsor to make up the gap but no corporate was willing to step up and just be the primary sponsor to fund what was needed.
Corporate lawyers now broadly advise their companies against putting any money towards demographic-specific initiatives due to the risks of being sued for discrimination.
Buying a booth at an event would probably be seen as fine but I can only imagine pitches to be a title sponsor were met with “don’t touch this” advice from corporate lawyers.
Post is very clear there is also less interest from individuals to participate. Tech jobs are going through implosion now (for several reasons), and working in tech is not so attractive anymore.
> Unlike past events, this year, both individual registrations
Mainly because the people in power believe they'll be able to replace us all any day now.
[flagged]
>It's a shame that events like this are affected, but I can't help but be glad that this ended...
I suppose you'll leave it up to the reader to determine what it's been replaced with instead. Things like this perhaps? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/white-house-says-us-amb...
Or just canceling scientific research because keywords like "diversity" showed up in the abstract.
As a matter of fact non-white, non-male individuals are disadvantaged in many societies. The consequences of improving the equality of opportunities may sometimes feel like disadvantage to groups that received preferential treatment before. The goal needs to be a levelled playing field for everyone, not denying inequality and punishing those who point out and strive to improve those social injustices.
Collective punishment or priviledges baced on race or sex is ... racism/sexism, pure and simple. If you want to help disadvantaged people then help those who are disadvantaged. But that's harder and generally requires you to actually show that they are disadvantaged rather than making racist/sexist claims.
1 reply →
Real equality isn't obtainable. What we are doing currently is just moving things around. The classic case of the vocal minority being louder then another minority. This isn't creating honest fairness, it just highlights certain groups to the detriment of others. Since LGBTQ has become louder, disabled people are being more forgotten again. Accessibility is HARD, so, just cater to LGBTQ and your corporate conscience is magically cleared up. Activists HATE this insight, since they are also blind to the needs of even smaller groups. I know what I am talking about, I am disabled, and I am watching the "landscape" since 35 years.
If your knee jerk reaction is to downvote this, I am not surprised, because, you know, that just underlines my point.
3 replies →
[flagged]
18 replies →
The federal government has cancelled funding for a ton of genuinely useful scientific research because "o noes not the DEI monster". (Not to mention just putting the word "diversity" in your proposal has been grounds for rejection, even if it you're talking about, say "wifi antenna diversity".)
But sure, I'm glad now you can say whatever you want in your code comments. Seems like a good trade. /s
Overcorrection is only a natural reaction to a previously even larger push in the other direction. The correction was sorely needed and wel'll just have to live with a little bit of collateral damage until things normalize.
1 reply →
Profiles of corporate courage...
To Godwin it (with his assumed blessing (1)), I guess this is how BMW, Hugo Boss, Allianz, etc, ended up being involved in the Holocaust.
(1) https://www.alternet.org/godwins-law-trump-hitler/
Reducing funding for something sometimes harmful, which then correspondingly means the funding is not passed on to others, is not the Holocaust.
The utter degrading of the meanings of powerful words might get us there, though.
> is not the Holocaust
Hitler and Nazi Germany did not start with the Holocaust. It was instead the end result. Something can be compared to Hitler or compared to the Nazis or their rhetoric without being literally the Holocaust.
Keep in mind that Hitler and the Nazis took power starting in 1933 but forcing jews to carry identification (i.e. add israel or sara to non-jewish names and add jewish identification marks to paperwork) didn't start until mid-to-late 1938 with Kristallnacht following only months later in Nov 1938.
But in that early period however Nazis began
- gutting research institution
- literally destroying research institutions and research. (ex the famous 1933 book burning picture was from the demolition of the Institute for Sexual Research which studied gender non conformity, intersex traits, and broader topics in the LGBTQIA academic space. Also was where the first transgender sex reassignment surgery took place.)
- expelling academics
- dismantling social programs
- pressuring companies into aligning with state ideological and industrial objectives
- seizing control of, attacking, or privatising domestic and foreign media
- pressuring domestic and foreign entertainment into aligning with Nazi ideological stances
- punishing, oppressing, and expelling political and cultural enemies of the party from the military and civic institutions.
- converting prisons into work camps.
- building out detention facilities/prisons for "illegals" with deplorable conditions with intent to make them suffer as long as possible. These would later become concentration camps and then death camps once crowding became too extreme. And notably this began with the romani population in the early 1930s who Nazis believed to be criminals illegally present within the country.
--------------------
Nazi germany was so much more than just the Holocaust and genocide of the Jewish people. They were part of it however they were the conclusion not the start.
> Reducing funding for something sometimes harmful, which then correspondingly means the funding is not passed on to others, is not the Holocaust.
This is a rather boring straw man characterisation of the claim you are replying to. Don’t do this.
2 replies →