Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[Emily's Cat]

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

Its's your job to do YOUR reading, and be able to paraphrase and explain whatever the ◊◊◊◊ you want to submit as supporting evidence for YOUR position.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sorry, but this is not acceptable. We are humans, not rocks. We don't have to wait 40+ years for things to just 'happen'.

I feel as though you're willfully ignoring my point. Especially since you decided to parse the quote right before the part that actually ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ explains WHY some of these take time:

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.

 

[Emily's Cat]

IOW the darkies only have themselves to blame. You see, according to whitey

Why the holy hell is it always self-styled progressives who feel entitled to toss out racial epithets and insulting labels with abandon?

 

[Emily's Cat]

But who introduced them to alcohol and tobacco?

Are white New Zealanders pinning Maori to the ground and forcing them to drink alcohol? Or is it just that somehow white New Zealanders have failed to educate Maori about alcohol and tobacco being addictive and detrimental?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The claim is that society in general is better for everybody when people and businesses respect the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion.

That's the claim. What's the supporting evidence?

Here, I'll go a step further. I'll posit that when societies and businesses pay no attention to surface level differences when hiring and promoting (race, ethnicity, sex, religion, etc.) and base their decisions solely on competence and character, those entities flourish.

The premise of DEI is that entities should focus on those surface level differences to ensure that they're all well-represented. This means that decisions should take into consideration things like race, ethnicity, sex, religion, etc. <<< This is what I want evidence of.

To make a rather crass analogy... Historical non-discrimination would say that a strip club should be willing to hire any attractive female that is willing to disrobe for cash. DEI would say that strip clubs should be expected to hire ugly females and males, fat females and males, etc... because that demonstrates their commitment to diversity and inclusion of their workforce, and provides equity to their staff. I see no reason to think that's a good idea... but many reasons to think it's a horribly bad idea.

 

[arthwollipot]

So here it is. It's a bit of a long read, so take your time with it.

Why The Right Fears Diversity, Equity And Inclusion

There are unqualified people getting a leg up—just not the people conservatives are whining about.

open.substack.com

 

[arthwollipot]

That's the claim. What's the supporting evidence?

Common sense. When families inbreed too much you end up with giant square chins and haemophilia. Every animal breeder on the planet knows that a lack of diversity can literally kill off a line.

To make a rather crass analogy... Historical non-discrimination would say that a strip club should be willing to hire any attractive female that is willing to disrobe for cash. DEI would say that strip clubs should be expected to hire ugly females and males, fat females and males, etc... because that demonstrates their commitment to diversity and inclusion of their workforce, and provides equity to their staff. I see no reason to think that's a good idea... but many reasons to think it's a horribly bad idea.

Yes, that's a crass analogy. It's also absolute ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Nobody is saying that you should hire people who are unqualified for the job. Read the article I posted above.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So here it is. It's a bit of a long read, so take your time with it.

Why The Right Fears Diversity, Equity And Inclusion

There are unqualified people getting a leg up—just not the people conservatives are whining about.

open.substack.com

I'm not reading that. It's packed full of sensationalist twitter images and opinion from the bit I managed to make through. It's not making any cogent argument that I can see.

How about you synopsize it since it seems so convincing to you?

 

[Trausti]

So here it is. It's a bit of a long read, so take your time with it.

Why The Right Fears Diversity, Equity And Inclusion

There are unqualified people getting a leg up—just not the people conservatives are whining about.

open.substack.com

Wouldn't it just be easier to say you hate White males?

 

[arthwollipot]

Wouldn't it just be easier to say you hate White males?

Wouldn't it just be easier to say you didn't read the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing?

 

[Trausti]

Wouldn't it just be easier to say you didn't read the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing?

I did. It's all about how White males are horrible. Ctrl F "white." 17 hits.

 

[arthwollipot]

I did. It's all about how White males are horrible. Ctrl F "white." 17 hits.

Oh yes, that's reading for comprehension.

 

[jt512]

What links? The initial link is, of course, to Costco.com, which is the source of the Shareholder voting document. Within that document, there is a shareholder proposal with 11 footnoted links, none of which refer to Costco as a source.

I guess we are looking at different documents. These are the footnotes I'm referring to:

¹³ https://mobilecontent.costco.com/live/resource/img/23w10059/2a-InclusionNEW_121223.pdf
¹⁴ Id.
¹⁵ https://mobilecontent.costco.com/live/resource/img/23w10059/2d-SupplierDiversity_NEW.pdf
¹⁶ https://mobilecontent.costco.com/live/resource/img/23w10059/2c-CommunitiesNEW1_121323.pdf
¹⁷ https://www.costco.com/sustainability-people-communities.html

 

[bruto]

I guess we are looking at different documents. These are the footnotes I'm referring to:

¹³ https://mobilecontent.costco.com/live/resource/img/23w10059/2a-InclusionNEW_121223.pdf
¹⁴ Id.
¹⁵ https://mobilecontent.costco.com/live/resource/img/23w10059/2d-SupplierDiversity_NEW.pdf
¹⁶ https://mobilecontent.costco.com/live/resource/img/23w10059/2c-CommunitiesNEW1_121323.pdf
¹⁷ https://www.costco.com/sustainability-people-communities.html

Owing to the way the document is paginated, I thought at first that those links were provided by Costco as part of their rebuttal. Looking at them I could see that as a possibility. I see now that they are among those used by the stockholders, though one should also note that the first 12 are quite different, and point to sources quite different. So my post #940 is definitely in error.

Whether they mean what the challengers mean is still in question, as Costco asserts that their actions are legal, and continues to support them, and to provide the sources to which those links point. But yes, as it turns out, the challengers are saying that Costco is doing what Costco happily claims it is doing.

 

[Trausti]

Oh yes, that's reading for comprehension.

Then why bring up that a person is White at all? Why should that matter? Oh, my mistake, that's the good racism.

 

[Trausti]

Oh yes, that's reading for comprehension.

It's kinda funny that your link purportedly in support of DEI sets out Tweets like this:

The reason the USA does well in the Olympics is because DEI is not practiced. Do you really think that US Mens and Womens 100 meter teams are representiative of the US? Of course, not. And they haven't been for decades. But who would want that? Instead, merit matters. Which is antithetical to DEI.

 

[arthwollipot]

Instead, merit matters. Which is antithetical to DEI.

Which is antithetical to the rightist boogeyperson straw figure construct that they call "DEI".

And you still haven't read the article.

 

[Trausti]

Which is antithetical to the rightist boogeyperson straw figure construct that they call "DEI".

And you still haven't read the article.

No, I read it. It's a screed against White people and how terrible they are. All White are "privilege and entitlement" and therefore deserve their comeuppance. This is the belief that Sasha and Malia Obama are oppressed while an Appalachian White boy living in a trailer home is an oppressor. Either you believe that all people should be treated equally irrespective of their race or sex, or you don't.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well it's interesting to me that that's the message you took from it, though I shouldn't be surprised by it.

No, that's a completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up interpretation of what you claim to have read, and I do not believe that it's possible to get from the words in the article to what you just typed in a rational fashion, so I conclude that you are blinded by hateful ideology.

If you're treating two people equally, and giving them both $100, but one of them's a billionaire and one of them is below the poverty line, that's not admirable, because the effect of your equal treatment of them is disproportionate. Equal treatment regardless of any other concern is just as hostile and dystopian as outright racism, sexism or classism. Remember the cartoon of the people behind the fence? To be equitable means that you shouldn't treat people as though they were all identical in every way, because people are diverse. Yes, you should go out of your way to be inclusive of some people who if all else were equal wouldn't otherwise be included.

So not are you arguing against a fake "DEI", you're arguing for ongoing injustice. Nice one.

ETA: This is, among others, one of the things that Critical Race Theory teaches us - real Critical Race Theory and not the other straw boogeyperson that the right complains about - that because of historic and systemic injustices, some people need a bigger slice of the pie than others.

 

[Trausti]

If you're treating two people equally, and giving them both $100, but one of them's a billionaire and one of them is below the poverty line, that's not admirable, because the effect of your equal treatment of them is disproportionate. Equal treatment regardless of any other concern is just as hostile and dystopian as outright racism, sexism or classism. Remember the cartoon of the people behind the fence? To be equitable means that you shouldn't treat people as though they were all identical in every way, because people are diverse. Yes, you should go out of your way to be inclusive of some people who if all else were equal wouldn't otherwise be included.

What does that have to do with a person's race or sex? Are you just prejudging people based on their skin hue as to whether to treat them equally? Can you not see the problem with that?