Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[Emily's Cat]

See? The invisibility of the bubble to those inside it is quite evident to those of us outside it, and now we also see the typical projection and transference that is typical of the Antiwoke Right Brigade. When their flaws are pointed out, they reflect that back on the pointer outer and say that we are the ones who exhibit those very flaws.

Fascinating, isn't it?

Let me break this down...

JT: XXX throughout the US and much of Western Europe works in way YYY
You: XXX in Australia isn't like that, it's like ZZZ
JT: XXX in Australia seems a bit more reasonable, but that's not how it works outside of AU.
You: You're just in a bubble making ◊◊◊◊ up about XXX, when I've clearly showed that XXX is perfectly fine and it works like ZZZ.
JT: Well, no, you sort-of-but-not-completely showed that XXX in Australia is supposed to work like ZZZ. I'm saying that in places that aren't Australia, that's not how it works - it works like YYY.
You: You're so dumb you can't even see that you're in a made up bubble! You right-wing poopy-head!

Me:

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is just evidence for how hard the false "DEI" has been talked up by the AWRB. Like the word "woke" it no longer means what it was supposed to mean, they've just taken it over and filled the entire conceptual space with ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

It's been talked up so hard by your go-to boogeyman... that various companies have literally made policies to do the thing that your boogeyman has pretended that they're doing?

FFS, this is absurd, wolli. Your entire logic is based on a fallacy I can't even name. It's pretty much this:
A: You're a terrorist!
B: No, I'm not a terrorist.
A: That's just what a terrorist would say!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Whatever the cause might be, it is unlikely that the system is somehow stacked against Whites and in favor of Asians, or that it was stacked in favor of Jews before that.

Not currently, no.

But let's not pretend history doesn't exist, and let's not engage in the retroactive revision to fit a narrative that so many people do. At various times in US and European history, both Asians and Jews (and Africans) have been systemically and intentionally discriminated against. Seriously, the Chinese Exclusion Act was a real thing. And early Chinese immigrants were effectively prohibited from holding a whole lot of jobs - it's part of why we still see overrepresentation of asian people in food service, dry cleaning and laundry, and hair & nail services. Those were some of the only fields available to them as they were essentially sole proprietorships not in competition with established businesses. For huge swathes of history, jewish people were prohibited from working in service or production industries, prohibited from owning land or working in agriculture... and so the only fields available were finance and mercantilism. This is part of why we still see overrepresentation of jewish people in financial industries.

One of my biggest complaints with the various DEI-ish approaches is that people seem to forget that things take time. It's not like you can fliop a switch and magically make all executive level positions representative of the population at large. If you make policies that impact hiring at the entry level... it's going to be 40+ years before that very first wave of non-discriminated-against people make their way into executive positions. And since it can take many years to alter that initial hiring behavior.... it's more likely 60+ years to reach an equilibrium position. And even then, lack of proportional representation isn't necessarily indicative of discrimination!

Look, I think my feminist credentials are pretty well established... but even so, I have no qualms saying that I absolutely do NOT expect that we'll EVER have 50% of the military female, let alone 50% of military leadership. Similarly, I don't expect electric linemen to magically become 50% female either... and I don't expect most caregiver positions to be 50% male. We can eliminate every single bit of discrimination involved... and you're still going to see some disparities in outcome for the simple reason that females tend to be more risk averse than males, and that females are physically weaker than males. And that's going to have an influence on the types of careers that females self-select out of... and thus impact the distribution overall.

Cultural influences and values will also play a role. To the extent that asian cultures value technical and intellectual capability over physical, we should expect to see a higher proportion of asian-descended people in STEM positions, and a lower proportion in football. To the extent that hispanic cultures value family over personal gain, it's reasonable to see a lower proportion of hispanic people in positions that require extended absences from their homes.

People select fields that 1) play to their strengths* and 2) reflect their values. Values are culturally defined, and strengths can be impacted by culture as well.

 

[Brainster]

Not currently, no.

But let's not pretend history doesn't exist, and let's not engage in the retroactive revision to fit a narrative that so many people do. At various times in US and European history, both Asians and Jews (and Africans) have been systemically and intentionally discriminated against. Seriously, the Chinese Exclusion Act was a real thing. And early Chinese immigrants were effectively prohibited from holding a whole lot of jobs - it's part of why we still see overrepresentation of asian people in food service, dry cleaning and laundry, and hair & nail services. Those were some of the only fields available to them as they were essentially sole proprietorships not in competition with established businesses. For huge swathes of history, jewish people were prohibited from working in service or production industries, prohibited from owning land or working in agriculture... and so the only fields available were finance and mercantilism. This is part of why we still see overrepresentation of jewish people in financial industries.

There certainly was systemic racism and anti-Semitism in the past; Jim Crow, poll taxes, red-lining, the gentleman's agreement, etc. Some vestiges may still remain and should indeed be rooted out. But not all disparities of outcomes can be blamed on some system. You point out that women will probably never achieve perfect parity with men in terms of the number of CEOs, and the variety of causes. DiAngelo and Kendi would cut right to structural sexism.

 

[Trausti]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872341607791333649

 

[Emily's Cat]

There certainly was systemic racism and anti-Semitism in the past; Jim Crow, poll taxes, red-lining, the gentleman's agreement, etc. Some vestiges may still remain and should indeed be rooted out. But not all disparities of outcomes can be blamed on some system. You point out that women will probably never achieve perfect parity with men in terms of the number of CEOs, and the variety of causes. DiAngelo and Kendi would cut right to structural sexism.

Agreed... which is a large part of why I think Kendi and DiAngelo are grifting full-of-◊◊◊◊ wankers who should be completely ignored as the asshats they are.

 

[bruto]

Because search function is not working, and I haven't been reading the thread diligently, I apologize in advance if this is old news, but I saw that Costco has just quite robustly rejected a shareholder proposal to drop its long-established DEI program, not only noting that it's been good for the company, but that the shareholders making the proposal were essentially lying when they suggested that it was for corporate well-being rather than for their opposition to DEI itself.

Costco Board Pushes Back Against Anti-DEI Activists

A group of Costco shareholders, emboldened by the Supreme Court’s continued assault on the equal protection clause of the 14

kottke.org

 

[arthwollipot]

Oh... you mean the one that you linked to, but couldn't actually explain in any fashion whatsoever? The one where you were completely unable to articulate in your own words what formed the foundation and the guiding principles? That one?

It's not my job to do your reading for you. The information is there, if you want it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

One of my biggest complaints with the various DEI-ish approaches is that people seem to forget that things take time. It's not like you can fliop a switch and magically make all executive level positions representative of the population at large. If you make policies that impact hiring at the entry level... it's going to be 40+ years

Sorry, but this is not acceptable. We are humans, not rocks. We don't have to wait 40+ years for things to just 'happen'. If we don't do anything except procrastinate, how do we know it won't take 100 years, or 200 years, or forever?

Slavery was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1772, then in Haiti in 1804, and the US in 1865. That was 160 years ago, and yet its effects are still with us today. Imagine if the US hadn't waged a bloody civil war to end slavery. Imagine if everybody just sat back and said "These things take time. I'm sure slavery will eventually die out of its own accord". Jim Crow laws weren't overturned until 1965, when I was 8 years old! Discrimination of Blacks still abounds - and that's with strong action taken. Imagine where we would be now if nobody had done anything.

Between 1804 and 1965 we developed steam trains, motor cars, airplanes, space rockets, electricity, radio and television, nuclear power... the technological advances are staggering. Yet somehow in 5 generations our 'modern' society wasn't able to erase bigotry that should have stopped 100 years ago. 60 years and another 3 generations later we still haven't managed it. I've been waiting my whole life for something that is never going to happen by itself - if ever. But conservatives insist that it disappeared decades ago, so we don't need to do anything.

This problem isn't just confined to the US. In New Zealand, conservatives (who are currently in power) tell us that the reason Maori are 'overrepresented' in prison isn't colonialism, but a lack of 'self responsibility' - IOW the darkies only have themselves to blame. You see, according to whitey he had nothing to do with it - the fact is that brown people around the World are simply inferior. It's part of their nature, nothing 'we' can do about it. I mean, we already erased their culture, stole their land, decimated them with disease, hooked them on our disgusting drug habits and brainwashed them with our religion - what more could we do to remake them into the lower classes who would replace whites in our society?

arthwollipot is 100% right about the 'invisibility of the bubble' - a bubble that whitey built to avoid facing his reponsilibities. The bubble's only invisble because whitey's eyes are firmly clamped shut.

 

[Brainster]

Because search function is not working, and I haven't been reading the thread diligently, I apologize in advance if this is old news, but I saw that Costco has just quite robustly rejected a shareholder proposal to drop its long-established DEI program, not only noting that it's been good for the company, but that the shareholders making the proposal were essentially lying when they suggested that it was for corporate well-being rather than for their opposition to DEI itself.

Costco Board Pushes Back Against Anti-DEI Activists

A group of Costco shareholders, emboldened by the Supreme Court’s continued assault on the equal protection clause of the 14

kottke.org

Costco probably has that good kind of DEI like Australia. Apparently it's nothing like the DEI we're discussing around here.

 

[Trausti]

Sorry, but this is not acceptable. We are humans, not rocks. We don't have to wait 40+ years for things to just 'happen'. If we don't do anything except procrastinate, how do we know it won't take 100 years, or 200 years, or forever?

Slavery was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1772, then in Haiti in 1804, and the US in 1865. That was 160 years ago, and yet its effects are still with us today. Imagine if the US hadn't waged a bloody civil war to end slavery. Imagine if everybody just sat back and said "These things take time. I'm sure slavery will eventually die out of its own accord". Jim Crow laws weren't overturned until 1965, when I was 8 years old! Discrimination of Blacks still abounds - and that's with strong action taken. Imagine where we would be now if nobody had done anything.

Between 1804 and 1965 we developed steam trains, motor cars, airplanes, space rockets, electricity, radio and television, nuclear power... the technological advances are staggering. Yet somehow in 5 generations our 'modern' society wasn't able to erase bigotry that should have stopped 100 years ago. 60 years and another 3 generations later we still haven't managed it. I've been waiting my whole life for something that is never going to happen by itself - if ever. But conservatives insist that it disappeared decades ago, so we don't need to do anything.

This problem isn't just confined to the US. In New Zealand, conservatives (who are currently in power) tell us that the reason Maori are 'overrepresented' in prison isn't colonialism, but a lack of 'self responsibility' - IOW the darkies only have themselves to blame. You see, according to whitey he had nothing to do with it - the fact is that brown people around the World are simply inferior. It's part of their nature, nothing 'we' can do about it. I mean, we already erased their culture, stole their land, decimated them with disease, hooked them on our disgusting drug habits and brainwashed them with our religion - what more could we do to remake them into the lower classes who would replace whites in our society?

arthwollipot is 100% right about the 'invisibility of the bubble' - a bubble that whitey built to avoid facing his reponsilibities. The bubble's only invisble because whitey's eyes are firmly clamped shut.

Why would colonialism be the reason that Maori are overrepresnted in prison (if they are). Did they not commit the crimes they were charged with? Have they no agency at all?

 

[Trausti]

Because search function is not working, and I haven't been reading the thread diligently, I apologize in advance if this is old news, but I saw that Costco has just quite robustly rejected a shareholder proposal to drop its long-established DEI program, not only noting that it's been good for the company, but that the shareholders making the proposal were essentially lying when they suggested that it was for corporate well-being rather than for their opposition to DEI itself.

Costco Board Pushes Back Against Anti-DEI Activists

A group of Costco shareholders, emboldened by the Supreme Court’s continued assault on the equal protection clause of the 14

kottke.org

Right, DEI is social signalling. It's signalling that already successful/profitable companies do for public relations. But Costco has been a profitable/successful company for many years. And it did that long before DEI.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Whatever the cause might be, it is unlikely that the system is somehow stacked against Whites and in favor of Asians, or that it was stacked in favor of Jews before that.

Are you sure about that?

Yesterday my brother took me on a tour around the private girls' school where he works as a gardener. He told me about the large number of foreign students they have, particularly Asians. The fee for live-in students is ~NZ$60,000 per year, far more than any regular NZ family can afford. But there are plenty of rich Asians who think nothing of sending their kids to an overseas 'resort' (as one of them described it) for a few years to get a more rounded education. And they do get the best education money can buy, way better than any state school. The result is that even girls with mediocre abilities come out above average - not just academically, but also culturally. They are much better prepared for life at the top of the socieconomic ladder, ensuring that their children will be too.

Let me repeat that - they are higher achievers not due to innate ability, but opportunity. An opportuntity what poor whites and others don't get. The school may be run by whites and partly funded by whites, but it's also stacked against whites.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Why would colonialism be the reason that Maori are overrepresnted in prison (if they are). Did they not commit the crimes they were charged with? Have they no agency at all?

There's that invisible bubble again.

Crime in New Zealand

New Zealand's crime statistics are compounded by the over-representation of Māori. Despite Māori making up only 16% of the general population, figures show 42% of all criminal apprehensions involve a person identifying as Māori, as do 51% of those in prison. In November 2019 the police launched a campaign to reduce Māori re-offending, as 51% of those in prison were Māori. For Māori women, the picture is even more acute: they comprise around 60% of the female prison population. A report by the Corrections Department says: "The figures lend themselves to extremist interpretations: at one end, some accuse the criminal justice system of being brutally racist, as either intentionally or unintentionally destructive to the interests and well-being of Māori as a people. At the other, there are those who dismiss the entire Māori race as constitutionally 'criminally inclined'."...

A forum held at Parliament in 2009 on the Drivers of Crime in New Zealand identified mainly socio-economic factors contributing to crime such as: "Family dysfunction; child maltreatment; poor educational achievement; harmful drinking and drug use; poor mental health; severe behavioural problems among children and young people; and the intergenerational transmission of criminal behaviour." The forum noted that "Many of these issues are concentrated within socially and economically disadvantaged families and communities." In New Zealand, it seems these life circumstances are more likely to affect Māori families than non-Māori– which contributes to the comparatively high rates of offending by Māori. In 2010 the Law Commission released a report on the social destruction caused by alcohol in New Zealand and quoted district court judges who said that 80% of all offending in New Zealand occurred under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

So there you have it - Maoris are inclined towards criminal behavior because they can't hold their liquor.

But who introduced them to alcohol and tobacco? Who stole their land and killed most of them off with terrible diseases and sickened the rest, forced them to learn European langauge and culture while supressing their own, and relegated them to generations of poverty? Whitey. Then whitey has the gall to say it's their fault for not handling it well. "It seems..." indeed. How could anyone expect otherwise?

According to many here, this situation of a 'criminally-inclined' indigeous race is unique to New Zealand. Yet strangely the same effect can also be seen elsewhere. It's almost as if the real cause is not the disparate local populations, but the result of a common factor... colonialism.

 

[Trausti]

There's that invisible bubble again.

Crime in New Zealand

So there you have it - Maoris are inclined towards criminal behavior because they can't hold their liquor.

But who introduced them to alcohol and tobacco? Who stole their land and killed most of them off with terrible diseases and sickened the rest, forced them to learn European langauge and culture while supressing their own, and relegated them to generations of poverty? Whitey. Then whitey has the gall to say it's their fault for not handling it well. "It seems..." indeed. How could anyone expect otherwise?

According to many here, this situation of a 'criminally-inclined' indigeous race is unique to New Zealand. Yet strangely the same effect can also be seen elsewhere. It's almost as if the real cause is not the disparate local populations, but the result of a common factor... colonialism.

This just doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that the Maori are helpless children who have no self control? And before the Europeans the Maori were a rich, propserous people, all holding hands and singing Kumbaya?

 

[bruto]

Right, DEI is social signalling. It's signalling that already successful/profitable companies do for public relations. But Costco has been a profitable/successful company for many years. And it did that long before DEI.

Yes, and after as well, which is the point. Your implication here that Costco's DEI policy is not doing anything useful, or the presumption of the anti-DEI activists that it is harmful to the company's well being, is at best uncorroborated by your comment. Of course some of your point of view depends on who you are and who is included, as well as broader questions of what role a corporation should play in the society that it serves, and what price should be paid for short term profit. But in any case, the Costco management appears to be of the opinion that the policy they have been pursuing up to now has been appropriate, and I am happy to see them unafraid not only to state their point of view, but to call the sincerity of the anti-DEI faction into question. As you point out, after all, they are a successful company as they now operate.

 

[Brainster]

Are you sure about that?

Yesterday my brother took me on a tour around the private girls' school where he works as a gardener. He told me about the large number of foreign students they have, particularly Asians.

I was referring to Harvard University, and Asian-Americans, who make up 37% of the current freshman class (and roughly 6% of the US population). From which, Kendi and DiAngelo would deduce that there is huge systematic racism in favor of Asian-Americans (and against White Americans, who are under-represented).

 

[HansMustermann]

This is just evidence for how hard the false "DEI" has been talked up by the AWRB. Like the word "woke" it no longer means what it was supposed to mean, they've just taken it over and filled the entire conceptual space with ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

Maybe, but there is a key difference. There is virtually nobody any more advertising that they are woke, so yes we mostly have their opponents using it. Meanwhile for what you call "the false DEI" we actually have organizations implementing those programs, and it's mostly the left that's pushing for it, and generally equity instead of equality. Did the right convince the left that that's what it means and that's what they should do? I mean, nothing is impossible, but it would be quite the linguistic coup.

 

[HansMustermann]

Your entire logic is based on a fallacy I can't even name. It's pretty much this:
A: You're a terrorist!
B: No, I'm not a terrorist.
A: That's just what a terrorist would say!

It's called the Bulverism fallacy. Whenever the response is basically some form of "X only says Y because he's a Z", yep, that's classic Bulverism.

But in the overarching scheme, like many of the progressive arguments we've had lately on the forums, it's just garden-variety Poisoning The Well fallacy. In fact in this thread we've seen both types of poisoning the well. Because yes, it actually has two closely-related types:

1. What I would call the ad-hominem type. In your example, the purpose isn't to prove that B is a terrorist. More like, "Whoever disagrees with me is a terrorist." (Or a nazi, homophobe, etc.) The difference between straight up ad-hom ("B is a terrorist, so don't listen to him") is that it's not specifically against B, but rather a preemptive shotgun approach. Anyone else who happens to take a sip from the poisoned well is fair game.

2. The trying to force a BS definition or premise, and any argument that doesn't agree to that definition is preemptively discarded. (Usually via some version of ad-hom or Bulverism.) See, Arth's insistence that his redefinition of DEI is the only one.

 

[Trausti]

Yes, and after as well, which is the point. Your implication here that Costco's DEI policy is not doing anything useful, or the presumption of the anti-DEI activists that it is harmful to the company's well being, is at best uncorroborated by your comment. Of course some of your point of view depends on who you are and who is included, as well as broader questions of what role a corporation should play in the society that it serves, and what price should be paid for short term profit. But in any case, the Costco management appears to be of the opinion that the policy they have been pursuing up to now has been appropriate, and I am happy to see them unafraid not only to state their point of view, but to call the sincerity of the anti-DEI faction into question. As you point out, after all, they are a successful company as they now operate.

Right, DEI had nothing to do with it. Costco was already a rich succesful company, they can easily pay the tithe and act self-righteous. I've yet to see an example of a failing company that opts to implement DEI and this policy change leads to success and profits. Do you know of any?