The implication here that the DEI movement had done nothing wrong is rather naive… it wasn’t all bad, but there was a lot of bad things happening to answer for.
Doesn't seem like that's implied at all. There is no implication about whether it is good or bad actually, but if the fact it was attacked is a bad thing, the only inference is that on balance it did more harm than good.
Many DEI programs were highly discriminatory if not outright racist towards certain minorities that were seen as less worthy. Asians and Jewish individuals were often heavily discriminated against via DEI initiatives. The list goes on.
These programs were, in theory, well intentioned but to suggest they did nothing wrong is simply factually incorrect.
You could say that it was easier to practice before the executive (that routinely hires the dumbest troglodytes - whose only qualification is loyalty to the fuhrer - into positions of power) started a witchhunt against anyone practicing it.
Since the only god our corporatations worship goes by power and money, they all started tripping over themselves to kiss the ring.
I should be the last one to defend the existing system.
But IMHO DEI answers the wrong question.
Worthwhile lives does not come from equal access to the hamster wheel.
I am much more pro UBI structures og negative taxation - which are inherently difficult to make descriminatory as there is no personal judgement of the people to receive it.
You probably don't actually want corporations that do intrinsically care about being able to violate federal civil rights and anti-discrimination law, and are willing to lose money and give up influence in order to keep doing so.
The implication here that the DEI movement had done nothing wrong is rather naive… it wasn’t all bad, but there was a lot of bad things happening to answer for.
I didn't see anyone but you suggest that.
Doesn't seem like that's implied at all. There is no implication about whether it is good or bad actually, but if the fact it was attacked is a bad thing, the only inference is that on balance it did more harm than good.
Could you elaborate on some of these "bad things"?
Many DEI programs were highly discriminatory if not outright racist towards certain minorities that were seen as less worthy. Asians and Jewish individuals were often heavily discriminated against via DEI initiatives. The list goes on.
These programs were, in theory, well intentioned but to suggest they did nothing wrong is simply factually incorrect.
3 replies →
Racism
You could also say that DEI is easier to defend when human work was more valuable and capital was cheaper.
You could say that it was easier to practice before the executive (that routinely hires the dumbest troglodytes - whose only qualification is loyalty to the fuhrer - into positions of power) started a witchhunt against anyone practicing it.
Since the only god our corporatations worship goes by power and money, they all started tripping over themselves to kiss the ring.
I should be the last one to defend the existing system.
But IMHO DEI answers the wrong question.
Worthwhile lives does not come from equal access to the hamster wheel.
I am much more pro UBI structures og negative taxation - which are inherently difficult to make descriminatory as there is no personal judgement of the people to receive it.
You probably don't actually want corporations that do intrinsically care about being able to violate federal civil rights and anti-discrimination law, and are willing to lose money and give up influence in order to keep doing so.
1 reply →
As should all things evil be.