Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Given the profound lack of sympathy you have demonstrated toward huge swathes of people - particularly female humans - I wonder if you apply this same measure to yourself?
Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc
- Thread starter jt512
- Start date
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,016
This is an odd point of comparison, given that board rooms are notoriously male-heavy. The more obvious comparison would be to previous administrations, and this administration is less diverse than Biden's.
And the cries of "DEI hire" in response to Amy Coney Barrett's failure to march in lock-step with Trump are instructive here. That's not an accusation a man would face. This administration and its supporters are fine with instrumental, camera-ready diversity. They run into trouble as soon as women or minorities exhibit the slightest bit of independence. Then, suddenly, the fact that they aren't white men is cause for suspicion.
No, by and large they're just incompetent sycophants, like their white counterparts.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Trump's EO specifically refers to eliminating DEI programs that violate civil rights laws against discrimination... and also doesn't include the term "purge" anywhere. You might notice that where you see it referred to as a "purge" are the sources that are already entirely opposed to any changes at all, and well... pretty much opposed to anything coming from Trump regardless of whether it makes sense. They largely fall into the category of "people who think DEI is the only thing keeping the US from reinstituting slavery", and they're also some of the worst actors in terms of malicious compliance. People who do things like insist that "OMG, we can't have DEI anymore, so therefore we can't teach about female scientists ever again!"
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Lol... the only good minorities are democrat minorities?
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,016
They also specifically referred to a lot more, which is why they were enjoined.
Whether or not the orders contain the word "purge" is wholly immaterial.
This is not a reasonable inference from anything I've said.
Last edited:
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
You would have more to work with if it weren't part of a larger and sustained pattern of behavior for the Republican Party.
It, itself, is no longer needed? Possibly. If so, then, what was the point in caring enough to get rid of it now? Also, why should any intelligent person believe that this is where the erosion suddenly stops? Not like we don't already have related examples of Civil Rights legislation being deemed to be unnecessary on a flimsy pretext and voided by Republicans judges and Republican lawmakers instantly passing legislation that would have been prevented by that which was just voided, after all. Heck, our last couple elections literally had Republicans in multiple states intentionally creating a situation where they got away with using outright illegally racially gerrymandered maps, so your "no longer needed" and "completely unnecessary" has much darker shading than you likely intended.
On the topic of slavery, for that matter, since you seem so intent upon that - when Republican judges chose to resurrect a segregationist "legal theory" in a way that just happens to undermine potential enforcement of anti-slavery laws, one that had been been unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court of the time, that was certainly cause for concern on that front. Nobly talk up anti-slavery laws all you want, but if the people you're supporting keep eroding the actual protection that they offer, that quite undermines any complaints that you may offer up. Also, before you try to pretend that slavery is just something from the past that's no longer relevant? It was just a couple years ago when a massive slave ring was caught in the US.
Last edited:
Graham2001
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,771
This study from Rutger's is being hawked around by various people, it claims that DEI exacerbates racial issues rather than fixes them.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
That sounds very much to me like they're starting with the anti-DEI agenda - the assumption that there are no DEI programs that are "actually" beneficial. It finishes with a whole lot of antiwoke buzzwords deliberately chosen for shock value.
That's not balanced. That's biased.
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,077
Any excuse not watch it and risk having to question your ideology. Not balanced? One of the three participants is the CEO of a DEI consulting firm, for ◊◊◊◊'s sake, and another of the three is a longtime progressive activist. If anything, it's biased in favor of DEI.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
The intro that you have transcribed does not endear me to the presentation, but I have added it to my Watch Later list. In the meantime, can you breifly sum up the arguments that it presents, for and against, in your own words?
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,077
I'm pleasantly surprised that you plan to watch it. It is difficult to summarize the content because of the unique format. The moderator poses a motion (similar to a formal debate) and the participants indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with it on a 5-point scale. The moderator asks them whey they chose those positions, and then he'll modify the motion, sometimes in a very provocative or challenging way, and the participants have the opportunity to change their stances, and if they do, he asks them why. They do this for a few iterations, and then go on to another motion, all related to some aspect of DEI and/or merit.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
Heh. Just because I've added it to Watch Later doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to watch it later. But it's a start. Thanks for outlining the basic format, but what about the arguments it presents, for and against?
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
Oh. I just realised that it's Peter Boghossian, antiwokist ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ and collaborator with unrepentant rapist Michael Shermer and white supremacist Stefan Molyneux. Co-author of hoax paper The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct. Part of the Intellectual Dark Web, who resigned from his position at Portland State, alleging that the university was a "social justice factory" that trained ideologues to suppress free speech.
It appears that my first impression was correct. I can see why you like him, and why you didn't mention his name when you recommended the video. I have removed the video from my Watch Later list. I will find no balance there.
It appears that my first impression was correct. I can see why you like him, and why you didn't mention his name when you recommended the video. I have removed the video from my Watch Later list. I will find no balance there.
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,077
That was precisely the response I expected from you in the first place. You are a closed-minded ideologue. I will not be bothering to interact with you in the future.
The ironic thing is, you would have found that the discussion is about 75% in agreement with your position, at least as I have understood it But, oh, noes, Boghossian!!!11
Adios, Bro. We are done.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
I hope you have a happy and fulfilling life.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,956
This is a feature, not a bug. Increased racial tensions require more DEI. It's a virtuous cycle.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
There are impacts to language requirements. I'll give you an anecdote. Late in 2024, the Biden Admin pushed through some required anti-discrimination language for health insurers, that we're required to include in several different documents. We already had a paragraph of anti-discrimination language, specifying that we don't discriminate in coverage or access on the basis of race, sex, religion, nation of origin, and a few other things. We also provided a third-party phone number to call if anyone believed they have been discriminated against.
Biden's admin added several additional categories and sentences, that doubled the length of the paragraph. That might seem like it's not a big deal... except that we're also required to provide *printed* materials *by mail* on all these documents. The longer paragraph resulted in about two-thirds of our documents requiring an additional page - and that comes with increased printing and mailing costs. And the new language didn't actually add any material information, or provide any additional protections to anybody - everything it addressed was already covered by the existing regulation already, and encompassed within the existing disclosure. So it added costs with no benefit.
Every time we slap more stuff on to existing language, there's a cost associated with it - even if you're not aware of it. When it comes to things that are written into actual law decades ago... this is cleaning out the closet. I mean, if you're a hoarder and get a feeling of security from being surrounded by lots and lots of paperwork, fine I suppose. But most of us would really rather clean it up and make it more streamlined - provided it doesn't actually lose anything in the process.
Trausti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,461
That's how they make their money.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
A point that is, unfortunately, in contention here. There is loss. It may be limited to some extent by current redundancy, but there's real reason to be concerned that that which provides said redundancy is also being targeted. There's also real reason to be concerned that the man who ran the most corrupt and scofflaw US administration in recent history, by far, and very possibly in the entire history of the country will be running an administration that will be much, much worse - an administration that happens to be actively pandering to the people who are trying to portray slavery positively, often with brazen lies. Given that, as I poked at before, it's true that you may be right that there's no real loss, but if so, the lack of loss would be far more likely to be because it would be ignored at will anyways, whatever redundancies may officially exist. Of course, it may easily not be quite that dire. Things might stay technically legal easily enough. A bit like how a big legal loophole was left by the 13th Amendment and how that was wildly abused to enslave massive numbers of people in all but official name, with special targeting of particular minorities for generations at that. Legally! A shameful legacy that's still not been ended, incidentally.
With all that said, what you've offered up sounds like little other than unsupported supposition that pointedly avoids addressing the numerous reasons why it's just not very credible, except as a potential excuse. It might be a silver lining, of course.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
I notice that Boghossian is contributing to an upcoming book edited by Lawrence Krauss. His fellow contributors include Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Stephen Pinker, and yes, Jordan Peterson. Plus a bunch of other names from the so-called "Intellectual Dark Web".
From Hemant Mehta's blog, linked above:
I mean, just in case you're still wondering why I dismissed Boghossian as an impartial reporter.
From Hemant Mehta's blog, linked above:
I mean, just in case you're still wondering why I dismissed Boghossian as an impartial reporter.