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.
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.
This is just my subjective experience, but the only people I've ever seen complain about "DEI" in real life were the most incompetent men I've ever met. These people were clearly aware, on some level, that "DEI" is a threat to them specifically.
Your post would be way less hilarious if you refrained from using words like "bitches" in a post arguing for DEI! Derogatory sexist terms don't really help your cuase.
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.
>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.
Or just help everyone and not worry about means testing. It won't be hard to spot the ones taking more than their fair share.
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.
It's almost like capitalism is inherently unequal.
2 replies →
[flagged]
This is just my subjective experience, but the only people I've ever seen complain about "DEI" in real life were the most incompetent men I've ever met. These people were clearly aware, on some level, that "DEI" is a threat to them specifically.
12 replies →
DEI imploded because it's racist and sexist and always was.
2 replies →
Your post would be way less hilarious if you refrained from using words like "bitches" in a post arguing for DEI! Derogatory sexist terms don't really help your cuase.
Clearly a Fox host is the best military super genius.
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.
That is idiotic and stems from the false notion that there is some natural equilibrium that will occur.